GRID K280Q vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile with GRID K280Q, including specs and performance data.
RX 560 Mobile outperforms GRID K280Q by an impressive 52% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 432 | 548 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | 0.44 |
| Power efficiency | 13.86 | 2.23 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 28 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | $1,875 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RX 560 Mobile has 1189% better value for money than GRID K280Q.
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 | 896 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 95.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 128 |
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 | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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 | 43
+59.3%
| 27−30
−59.3%
|
| 4K | 36
+71.4%
| 21−24
−71.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33
+2886%
| 69.44
−2886%
|
| 4K | 2.78
+3115%
| 89.29
−3115%
|
- RX 560 Mobile has 2886% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile has 3115% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 87
+58.2%
|
55−60
−58.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+63.3%
|
30−33
−63.3%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+62.9%
|
35−40
−62.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+55%
|
100−105
−55%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+62.2%
|
45−50
−62.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+57.5%
|
40−45
−57.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+52.4%
|
21−24
−52.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+66.7%
|
24−27
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+66.7%
|
21−24
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+53.3%
|
30−33
−53.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+62.2%
|
45−50
−62.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+66.7%
|
27−30
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+66.7%
|
12−14
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+61.7%
|
60−65
−61.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 80−85
+60%
|
50−55
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+68.6%
|
35−40
−68.6%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+53.3%
|
75−80
−53.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+57.1%
|
14−16
−57.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+60%
|
35−40
−60%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+58.3%
|
24−27
−58.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+80%
|
10−11
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 36
+71.4%
|
21−24
−71.4%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and GRID K280Q compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 59% faster in 1080p
- RX 560 Mobile is 71% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.65 | 6.35 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 28 June 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 225 Watt |
RX 560 Mobile has a 52% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 309.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K280Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook card while GRID K280Q 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.
