GRID K160Q vs Radeon RX 7600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 7600 with GRID K160Q, including specs and performance data.
RX 7600 outperforms K160Q by a whopping 2548% 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 | 119 | 1015 |
| Place by popularity | 43 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 87.81 | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | 18.43 | 0.88 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 24 May 2023 (2 years ago) | 28 June 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $269 | $125 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 7600 has 67446% 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 | 2048 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1720 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2655 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 339.8 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 21.75 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | no 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).
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 204 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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 | 141
+2720%
| 5−6
−2720%
|
| 1440p | 71
+3450%
| 2−3
−3450%
|
| 4K | 37
+3600%
| 1−2
−3600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.91
+1210%
| 25.00
−1210%
|
| 1440p | 3.79
+1550%
| 62.50
−1550%
|
| 4K | 7.27
+1619%
| 125.00
−1619%
|
- RX 7600 has 1210% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 7600 has 1550% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 7600 has 1619% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 348
+2800%
|
12−14
−2800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 148
+2860%
|
5−6
−2860%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+2600%
|
5−6
−2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 336
+2700%
|
12−14
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 117
+2825%
|
4−5
−2825%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+2950%
|
6−7
−2950%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+2767%
|
6−7
−2767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+2980%
|
5−6
−2980%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+3050%
|
4−5
−3050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+3020%
|
5−6
−3020%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+2788%
|
8−9
−2788%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+2600%
|
5−6
−2600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 179
+2883%
|
6−7
−2883%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+2680%
|
10−11
−2680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100
+3233%
|
3−4
−3233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 174
+2800%
|
6−7
−2800%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+2767%
|
6−7
−2767%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+2980%
|
5−6
−2980%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+3050%
|
4−5
−3050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150
+2900%
|
5−6
−2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 113
+2725%
|
4−5
−2725%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+3020%
|
5−6
−3020%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 210
+2900%
|
7−8
−2900%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+2788%
|
8−9
−2788%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+2600%
|
5−6
−2600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+2925%
|
4−5
−2925%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+2617%
|
6−7
−2617%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+2980%
|
5−6
−2980%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+3020%
|
5−6
−3020%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 123
+2975%
|
4−5
−2975%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+2788%
|
8−9
−2788%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180
+2767%
|
6−7
−2767%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+2900%
|
3−4
−2900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+2710%
|
10−11
−2710%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2817%
|
6−7
−2817%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+2811%
|
9−10
−2811%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+3300%
|
3−4
−3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 56
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 95−100
+3067%
|
3−4
−3067%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+2775%
|
4−5
−2775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+2775%
|
4−5
−2775%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 86
+2767%
|
3−4
−2767%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2575%
|
4−5
−2575%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 82
+2633%
|
3−4
−2633%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+2611%
|
9−10
−2611%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+3100%
|
2−3
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 57
+2750%
|
2−3
−2750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+3750%
|
2−3
−3750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2550%
|
2−3
−2550%
|
This is how RX 7600 and GRID K160Q compete in popular games:
- RX 7600 is 2720% faster in 1080p
- RX 7600 is 3450% faster in 1440p
- RX 7600 is 3600% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.46 | 1.49 |
| Recency | 24 May 2023 | 28 June 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 130 Watt |
RX 7600 has a 2548.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
GRID K160Q, on the other hand, has 26.9% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K160Q in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 7600 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.
