GRID K160Q vs GeForce GTX 1080 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with GRID K160Q, including specs and performance data.
1080 Ti outperforms K160Q by a whopping 2858% 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 | 95 | 1015 |
| Place by popularity | 50 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.08 | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | 13.66 | 0.89 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 10 March 2017 (8 years ago) | 28 June 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | $125 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 1080 Ti has 14577% better value for money than GRID K160Q.
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 | 3584 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1481 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1582 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 91 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 354.4 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.34 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 88 | 16 |
| TMUs | 224 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2.75 MB | 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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5X | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 352 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1376 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 484.4 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 129
+3125%
| 4−5
−3125%
|
| 1440p | 84
+4100%
| 2−3
−4100%
|
| 4K | 67
+3250%
| 2−3
−3250%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.42
+477%
| 31.25
−477%
|
| 1440p | 8.32
+651%
| 62.50
−651%
|
| 4K | 10.43
+499%
| 62.50
−499%
|
- GTX 1080 Ti has 477% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti has 651% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti has 499% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+2925%
|
8−9
−2925%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3467%
|
3−4
−3467%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 166
+3220%
|
5−6
−3220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+2925%
|
8−9
−2925%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3467%
|
3−4
−3467%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120
+2900%
|
4−5
−2900%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+3100%
|
6−7
−3100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147
+3575%
|
4−5
−3575%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+3400%
|
4−5
−3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 125
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+3038%
|
8−9
−3038%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 154
+2980%
|
5−6
−2980%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240−250
+2925%
|
8−9
−2925%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2989%
|
9−10
−2989%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3467%
|
3−4
−3467%
|
| Dota 2 | 133
+3225%
|
4−5
−3225%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 117
+3800%
|
3−4
−3800%
|
| Fortnite | 203
+3283%
|
6−7
−3283%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145
+3525%
|
4−5
−3525%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140−150
+3400%
|
4−5
−3400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120
+2900%
|
4−5
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 115
+3733%
|
3−4
−3733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 160−170
+3280%
|
5−6
−3280%
|
| Valorant | 250−260
+3038%
|
8−9
−3038%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 149
+2880%
|
5−6
−2880%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3467%
|
3−4
−3467%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 116
+3767%
|
3−4
−3767%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 109
+3533%
|
3−4
−3533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120
+2900%
|
4−5
−2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+3300%
|
3−4
−3300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+3167%
|
3−4
−3167%
|
| Valorant | 179
+2883%
|
6−7
−2883%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 163
+3160%
|
5−6
−3160%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2875%
|
4−5
−2875%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−350
+3080%
|
10−11
−3080%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+4100%
|
2−3
−4100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 56
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+3400%
|
5−6
−3400%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+3044%
|
9−10
−3044%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 118
+3833%
|
3−4
−3833%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 107
+3467%
|
3−4
−3467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 97
+3133%
|
3−4
−3133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+3300%
|
3−4
−3300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 107
+3467%
|
3−4
−3467%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 98
+3167%
|
3−4
−3167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 72
+3500%
|
2−3
−3500%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+2900%
|
9−10
−2900%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70
+3400%
|
2−3
−3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+5300%
|
1−2
−5300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 125
+3025%
|
4−5
−3025%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 53
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 51
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
This is how GTX 1080 Ti and GRID K160Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 1080 Ti is 3125% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 4100% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1080 Ti is 3250% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 44.08 | 1.49 |
| Recency | 10 March 2017 | 28 June 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
GTX 1080 Ti has a 2858.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1000% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
GRID K160Q, on the other hand, has 92.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K160Q in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a desktop graphics card while GRID K160Q 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.
