GeForce RTX 2070 vs GRID K340
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID K340 with GeForce RTX 2070, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 outperforms K340 by a whopping 1220% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 835 | 137 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 74 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 22.62 |
| Power efficiency | 1.01 | 17.07 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | TU106 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (13 years ago) | 17 October 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,299 | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 2070 has 113000% better value for money than GRID K340.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 ×4 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 950 MHz | 1410 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1620 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 ×4 | 233.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS ×4 | 7.465 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 ×4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 ×4 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 2.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 4 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 229 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB ×4 | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit ×4 | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s ×4 | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a, 1x USB Type-C |
| HDMI | - | + |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 9−10
−92.6%
| 121 |
| 1440p | 6−7 | 85
+1317%
|
| 4K | 4−5 | 62
+1450%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 366.56 | 4.12
+98.9%
|
| 1440p | 549.83 | 5.87
+98.9%
|
| 4K | 824.75 | 8.05
+99%
|
- RTX 2070 has 99% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX 2070 has 99% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RTX 2070 has 99% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 100−110 | 100−110 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Battlefield 5 | 126 | 126 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Far Cry 5 | 114 | 114 |
| Fortnite | 174 | 174 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 142 | 142 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 211 | 211 |
| Valorant | 258 | 258 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Battlefield 5 | 117 | 117 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220 | 210−220 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Dota 2 | 138 | 138 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110 | 110 |
| Fortnite | 162 | 162 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135 | 135 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127 | 127 |
| Metro Exodus | 78 | 78 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 202 | 202 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 158 | 158 |
| Valorant | 248 | 248 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 108 | 108 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Dota 2 | 130 | 130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 104 | 104 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110 | 110 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 147 | 147 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 87 | 87 |
| Valorant | 184 | 184 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 156 | 156 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 80−85 | 80−85 |
| Metro Exodus | 50 | 50 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 243 | 243 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 88 | 88 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 88 | 88 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 93 | 93 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80 | 75−80 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 109 | 109 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 86 |
| Metro Exodus | 32 | 32 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 63 | 63 |
| Valorant | 231 | 231 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55 | 55 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 116 | 116 |
| Far Cry 5 | 49 | 49 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 63 | 63 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61 | 61 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 53 | 53 |
This is how GRID K340 and RTX 2070 compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 is 1244% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 is 1317% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 is 1450% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.92 | 38.53 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 17 October 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 175 Watt |
RTX 2070 has a 1220% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 57% more advanced lithography process, and 22% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K340 in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID K340 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 2070 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
