Radeon Pro W6800 vs GRID K260Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID K2 ... K220Q ... K240Q ... K260Q ... K280Q ... K520 Quadro 4100 Quadro K4200 Quadro K5000 ... SYNC Tesla K8 ... K10
VS
Radeon Pro V620 Radeon Pro W6800 Radeon Pro W6800X ... Duo Radeon Pro W6900X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K260Q and Radeon Pro W6800, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GRID K260Q
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 225 Watt
7.64

Pro W6800 outperforms GRID K260Q by a whopping 571% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GRID K260Q GRID K260Q
Pro W6800 Pro W6800

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking52052
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.8623.18
Power efficiency2.4514.80
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGK104Navi 21
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date28 June 2013 (11 years ago)8 June 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$937 $2,249

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Pro W6800 has 2595% better value for money than GRID K260Q.

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 cores15363840
Core clock speed745 MHz2075 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2320 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)225 Watt250 Watt
Texture fill rate95.36556.8
Floating-point processing power2.289 TFLOPS17.82 TFLOPS
ROPs3296
TMUs128240
Ray Tracing Coresno data60

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB32 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs6x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.2
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GRID K260Q 7.64
Pro W6800 51.29
+571%

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.

GRID K260Q 2949
Pro W6800 19791
+571%

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 HD21−24
−633%
154
+633%
1440p18−21
−650%
135
+650%
4K12−14
−608%
85
+608%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Hitman 3 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Hitman 3 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 277
+0%
277
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Hitman 3 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 225
+0%
225
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 268
+0%
268
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 157
+0%
157
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%
Hitman 3 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 179
+0%
179
+0%
Metro Exodus 55
+0%
55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 212
+0%
212
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hitman 3 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 99
+0%
99
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 126
+0%
126
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

This is how GRID K260Q and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:

  • Pro W6800 is 633% faster in 1080p
  • Pro W6800 is 650% faster in 1440p
  • Pro W6800 is 608% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 7.64 51.29
Recency 28 June 2013 8 June 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 32 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 225 Watt 250 Watt

GRID K260Q has 11.1% lower power consumption.

Pro W6800, on the other hand, has a 571.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K260Q in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA GRID K260Q
GRID K260Q
AMD Radeon Pro W6800
Radeon Pro W6800
Like
Like

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GRID K260Q GRID K260Q
vs
Quadro K1200 Quadro K1200
Pro W6800 Radeon Pro W6800
vs
Quadro GV100 Quadro GV100
GRID K260Q GRID K260Q
vs
FirePro W5000 FirePro W5000
GRID K260Q GRID K260Q
vs
RTX 2060 Super GeForce RTX 2060 Super
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile Arc Graphics 64EU Mobile
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
P106-100 P106 100
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
Quadro4 980 XGL Quadro4 980 XGL
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
ATI FireGL X2-256 FireGL X2 256
GRID K280Q GRID K280Q
vs
RX Vega 3 Radeon RX Vega 3
GRID K280Q GRID K280Q
vs
T600 T600
GRID K280Q GRID K280Q
vs
RTX 4090 Mobile GeForce RTX 4090 Mobile
GRID K2 GRID K2
vs
K2100M Quadro K2100M
GRID K2 GRID K2
vs
9600M GT GeForce 9600M GT

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K260Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 80 votes

Rate Radeon Pro W6800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.