Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano vs GRID K340

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking822not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency0.99no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGK107Vega 10
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date23 July 2013 (12 years ago)1 October 2017 (8 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.

no data

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 cores384 ×44096
Core clock speed950 MHz1156 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1247 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate30.40 ×4319.2
Floating-point processing power0.7296 TFLOPS ×4no data
ROPs8 ×464
TMUs32 ×4256
L1 Cache32 KBno data
L2 Cache128 KBno data

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
Length267 mm152 mm
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pin2x 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 typeGDDR5HBM2
Maximum RAM amount1 GB ×48 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit ×42048 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1600 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s ×4409.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12.0
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA3.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 23 July 2013 1 October 2017
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 250 Watt

GRID K340 has 11.1% lower power consumption.

RX Vega 64 Nano, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GRID K340 and Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GRID K340 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano is a desktop one.

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 K340
GRID K340
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

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.


1 1 vote

Rate GRID K340 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 5 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID K340 or Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.