GRID K520 vs Radeon R7 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 260 with GRID K520, including specs and performance data.
K520 outperforms R7 260 by a significant 22% 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 | 597 | 547 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.28 | 0.15 |
| Power efficiency | 5.60 | 2.88 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Bonaire | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 17 December 2013 (12 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $3,599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 260 has 2087% better value for money than GRID K520.
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 | 768 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,080 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 48.00 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.536 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1625 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 104 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.91 | 8.41 |
| Recency | 17 December 2013 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 225 Watt |
R7 260 has an age advantage of 4 months, and 96% lower power consumption.
GRID K520, on the other hand, has a 22% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GRID K520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 260 is a desktop graphics card while GRID K520 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.
