Radeon RX 560X vs GRID K340
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GRID K340 with Radeon RX 560X, including specs and performance data.
560X outperforms K340 by a whopping 172% 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 | 806 | 552 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.98 | 7.97 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 384 ×4 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 950 MHz | 1175 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1275 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 ×4 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS ×4 | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 ×4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 ×4 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 1024 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 170 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB ×4 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit ×4 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s ×4 | 112.0 GB/s |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.73 | 7.42 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 75 Watt |
RX 560X has a 171.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K340 in performance tests.
Be aware that GRID K340 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 560X 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.
