Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh vs GRID K240Q

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking564not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.27no data
Power efficiency2.02no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK104TU104B
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date28 June 2013 (11 years ago)8 June 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$469 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores15363072
Core clock speed745 MHz1035 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1545 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt110 Watt
Texture fill rate95.36296.6
Floating-point processing power2.289 TFLOPS9.492 TFLOPS
ROPs3264
TMUs128192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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 3.0 x16
WidthIGPno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s448.0 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.140
CUDA3.07.5

Pros & cons summary


Recency 28 June 2013 8 June 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 110 Watt

RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh has an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 104.5% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GRID K240Q and Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GRID K240Q is a workstation card while Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GRID K240Q
GRID K240Q
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh
Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


5 1 vote

Rate GRID K240Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Quadro RTX 5000 Mobile Refresh on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.