GRID K260Q vs Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) with GRID K260Q, including specs and performance data.

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
2023
9.39
+33.2%

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) outperforms K260Q by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking496588
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.40
Power efficiencyno data2.41
ArchitectureXe LPG (2023)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameMeteor Lake iGPUGK104
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date14 December 2023 (1 year ago)28 June 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$937

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores41536
Core clock speed300 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed1950 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology5 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data225 Watt
Texture fill rateno data95.36
Floating-point processing powerno data2.289 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data128
L1 Cache768 KB128 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data160.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data12 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-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 HD20
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data66.93

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Far Cry 5 24
+33.3%
18−20
−33.3%
Fortnite 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+38.1%
21−24
−38.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
Valorant 90−95
+41.5%
65−70
−41.5%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Counter-Strike 2 50−55
+45.7%
35−40
−45.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+44%
100−105
−44%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Far Cry 5 22
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Fortnite 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30
+38.1%
21−24
−38.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
+42.9%
21−24
−42.9%
Valorant 90−95
+41.5%
65−70
−41.5%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+40%
30−33
−40%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+35.7%
14−16
−35.7%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+44.4%
27−30
−44.4%
Far Cry 5 21
+50%
14−16
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+36.7%
30−33
−36.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+41.7%
24−27
−41.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+42.5%
40−45
−42.5%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75
+46%
50−55
−46%
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Valorant 100−110
+41.3%
75−80
−41.3%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+50%
12−14
−50%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+43.8%
16−18
−43.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Valorant 50−55
+42.9%
35−40
−42.9%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+33.3%
12−14
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%

This is how Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) and GRID K260Q compete in popular games:

  • Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is 43% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.39 7.05
Recency 14 December 2023 28 June 2013
Chip lithography 5 nm 28 nm

Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) has a 33.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K260Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is a notebook graphics card while GRID K260Q is a workstation one.

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.


Intel Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
NVIDIA GRID K260Q
GRID K260Q

Other comparisons

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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K260Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) or GRID K260Q, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.