Radeon RX 6750 XT vs GRID K140Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K140Q with Radeon RX 6750 XT, including specs and performance data.

GRID K140Q
2013, $125
1 GB DDR3, 130 Watt
1.74

6750 XT outperforms K140Q by a whopping 2746% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking98072
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.1848.81
Power efficiency1.0315.25
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGK107Navi 22
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date28 June 2013 (12 years ago)3 March 2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$125 $549

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 6750 XT has 27017% better value for money than GRID K140Q.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores1922560
Core clock speed850 MHz2150 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2600 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million17,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate13.60416.0
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS13.31 TFLOPS
ROPs1664
TMUs16160
Ray Tracing Coresno data40
L0 Cacheno data640 KB
L1 Cache16 KB512 KB
L2 Cache256 KB3 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB12 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s432.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.0-

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.

GRID K140Q 1.74
RX 6750 XT 49.52
+2746%

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.

GRID K140Q 727
Samples: 4
RX 6750 XT 20710
+2749%
Samples: 5417

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 HD5−6
−3160%
163
+3160%
1440p3−4
−2833%
88
+2833%
4K1−2
−4900%
50
+4900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p25.00
−642%
3.37
+642%
1440p41.67
−568%
6.24
+568%
4K125.00
−1038%
10.98
+1038%
  • RX 6750 XT has 642% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT has 568% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT has 1038% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 353
+0%
353
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 165
+0%
165
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 195
+0%
195
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 346
+0%
346
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 127
+0%
127
+0%
Far Cry 5 178
+0%
178
+0%
Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 217
+0%
217
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 220
+0%
220
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 109
+0%
109
+0%
Dota 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Far Cry 5 170
+0%
170
+0%
Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 186
+0%
186
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 162
+0%
162
+0%
Metro Exodus 127
+0%
127
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 245
+0%
245
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 98
+0%
98
+0%
Dota 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Far Cry 5 158
+0%
158
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 135
+0%
135
+0%
Valorant 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 126
+0%
126
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 106
+0%
106
+0%
Metro Exodus 76
+0%
76
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 60
+0%
60
+0%
Far Cry 5 141
+0%
141
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 104
+0%
104
+0%
Metro Exodus 47
+0%
47
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 79
+0%
79
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 26
+0%
26
+0%
Dota 2 101
+0%
101
+0%
Far Cry 5 78
+0%
78
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

This is how GRID K140Q and RX 6750 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6750 XT is 3160% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6750 XT is 2833% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6750 XT is 4900% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.74 49.52
Recency 28 June 2013 3 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 12 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 250 Watt

GRID K140Q has 92% lower power consumption.

RX 6750 XT, on the other hand, has a 2746% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6750 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K140Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID K140Q is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6750 XT 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.

Community ratings

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


No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K140Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 3322 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6750 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID K140Q or Radeon RX 6750 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.