GRID K160Q vs GeForce 310M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M with GRID K160Q, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 310M
2010
Up to 1 GB DDR3, 14 Watt
0.31

K160Q outperforms 310M by a whopping 387% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking14001031
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.14
Power efficiency1.710.90
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGT218GK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date10 January 2010 (16 years ago)28 June 2013 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$125

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores16192
Core clock speed606 MHz850 MHz
Number of transistors260 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate4.84813.60
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs416
TMUs816
L1 Cacheno data16 KB
L2 Cache32 KB256 KB

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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s28.51 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.15.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA+3.0

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GeForce 310M 0.31
GRID K160Q 1.51
+387%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 310M 128
Samples: 1352
GRID K160Q 628
+391%
Samples: 7

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Palworld 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Palworld 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Valorant 24−27
−380%
120−130
+380%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
−364%
65−70
+364%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Dota 2 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Palworld 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%
Valorant 24−27
−380%
120−130
+380%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Dota 2 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%
Valorant 24−27
−380%
120−130
+380%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

1440p
Epic

Palworld 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−367%
70−75
+367%
Valorant 5−6
−380%
24−27
+380%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 1.51
Recency 10 January 2010 28 June 2013
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 130 Watt

GeForce 310M has 829% lower power consumption.

GRID K160Q, on the other hand, has a 387% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The GRID K160Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook graphics card while GRID K160Q is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 499 votes

Rate GeForce 310M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K160Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 310M or GRID K160Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.