Radeon RX 9070 GRE vs GRID M3-3020
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID M3-3020 with Radeon RX 9070 GRE, including specs and performance data.
9070 GRE outperforms M3-3020 by a whopping 694% 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 | 605 | 50 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 60.85 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 19.84 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Navi 48 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 May 2016 (10 years ago) | 8 May 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 640 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1033 MHz | 1420 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1306 MHz | 2790 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 53,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.24 | 535.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.672 TFLOPS | 34.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 40 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 96 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 8 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 48 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 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 2x 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 | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1300 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| HDMI | - | + |
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 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
| 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 | 18−21
−88.8%
| 160 |
| 1440p | 10−12 | 85
+750%
|
| 4K | 7−8
−87.7%
| 57 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.43 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.46 |
| 4K | no data | 9.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Fortnite | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Far Cry 6 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Fortnite | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Metro Exodus | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 364 | 364 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 197 | 197 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 250−260 | 250−260 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450 | 400−450 |
| Far Cry 6 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Metro Exodus | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Valorant | 350−400 | 350−400 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190 | 180−190 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 142 | 142 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Far Cry 6 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Metro Exodus | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 113 | 113 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100 | 95−100 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
This is how GRID M3-3020 and RX 9070 GRE compete in popular games:
- RX 9070 GRE is 789% faster in 1080p
- RX 9070 GRE is 750% faster in 1440p
- RX 9070 GRE is 714% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.06 | 56.05 |
| Recency | 18 May 2016 | 8 May 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
RX 9070 GRE has a 694% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 86% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9070 GRE is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID M3-3020 in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID M3-3020 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 9070 GRE 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.
