GRID K1 vs Radeon HD 8240
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8240 with GRID K1, including specs and performance data.
K1 outperforms HD 8240 by a whopping 164% 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 | 1281 | 1016 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.04 | 0.93 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 18 March 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,140 |
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 | 128 | 192 ×4 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 13.60 ×4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1024 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS ×4 |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 ×4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 ×4 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 256 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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB ×4 |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit ×4 |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.51 GB/s ×4 |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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.
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
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−150%
|
45−50
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 1.56 |
| Recency | 1 November 2013 | 18 March 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 130 Watt |
HD 8240 has an age advantage of 7 months, and 767% lower power consumption.
GRID K1, on the other hand, has a 164% higher aggregate performance score.
The GRID K1 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8240 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8240 is a desktop graphics card while GRID K1 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.
