GRID K220Q vs GeForce GTX 960M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 960M with GRID K220Q, including specs and performance data.
960M outperforms K220Q by a whopping 270% 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 | 552 | 907 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 8.26 | 0.74 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 13 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 2 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $469 |
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 | 640 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 | 95.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.505 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 512 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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:
| 900p | 95
+296%
| 24−27
−296%
|
| Full HD | 35
+289%
| 9−10
−289%
|
| 1440p | 15
+275%
| 4−5
−275%
|
| 4K | 14
+367%
| 3−4
−367%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 52.11 |
| 1440p | no data | 117.25 |
| 4K | no data | 156.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 38
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+300%
|
7−8
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 99
+313%
|
24−27
−313%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+295%
|
21−24
−295%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+327%
|
30−33
−327%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+288%
|
16−18
−288%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Fortnite | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 31
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 29
+314%
|
7−8
−314%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+295%
|
21−24
−295%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+288%
|
16−18
−288%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 23
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+295%
|
21−24
−295%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 31
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+294%
|
16−18
−294%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+283%
|
24−27
−283%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how GTX 960M and GRID K220Q compete in popular games:
- GTX 960M is 296% faster in 900p
- GTX 960M is 289% faster in 1080p
- GTX 960M is 275% faster in 1440p
- GTX 960M is 367% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.00 | 2.16 |
| Recency | 13 March 2015 | 2 July 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
GTX 960M has a 270.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 months, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K220Q in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook graphics card while GRID K220Q 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.
