GRID K160Q vs GeForce GT 710

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 710 with GRID K160Q, including specs and performance data.

GT 710
2014
2 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
1.63

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking955954
Place by popularity71not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.040.30
Power efficiency5.880.86
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK208GK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date27 March 2014 (10 years ago)28 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$34.99 $125

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GRID K160Q has 650% better value for money than GT 710.

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 cores192192
Core clock speed954 MHz850 MHz
Number of transistors915 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt130 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature95 °Cno data
Texture fill rate15.2613.60
Floating-point processing power0.3663 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1616

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 supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Height2.713" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1.8 GB/s891 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s28.51 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-DHDMIVGANo outputs
Multi monitor support3 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision+-
PureVideo+-
PhysX+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
CUDA+3.0

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.

GT 710 1.63
GRID K160Q 1.63

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.

GT 710 627
GRID K160Q 628
+0.2%

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 HD8
+0%
8−9
+0%
1440p4
+0%
4−5
+0%
4K6
+0%
6−7
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.3715.63
1440p8.7531.25
4K5.8320.83

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how GT 710 and GRID K160Q compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p
  • A tie in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Recency 27 March 2014 28 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 130 Watt

GT 710 has an age advantage of 8 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 584.2% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 710 and GRID K160Q.

Be aware that GeForce GT 710 is a desktop card while GRID K160Q is a workstation one.


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 GeForce GT 710
GeForce GT 710
NVIDIA GRID K160Q
GRID K160Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.1 4319 votes

Rate GeForce GT 710 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K160Q 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.