GRID K160Q vs Titan X Pascal

Place in the ranking	158	955
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.85	0.31
Power efficiency	9.33	0.86
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP102	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	2 August 2016 (8 years ago)	28 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,199	$125

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Titan X Pascal has 2110% better value for money than GRID K160Q.

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	3584	192
Core clock speed	1417 MHz	850 MHz
Boost clock speed	1531 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	11,800 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	130 Watt
Texture fill rate	342.9	13.60
Floating-point processing power	10.97 TFLOPS	0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs	96	16
TMUs	224	16

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 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 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	GDDR5X	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1251 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	480.4 GB/s	28.51 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.1.126
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.

Titan X Pascal 33.88
+1979%

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.

Titan X Pascal 13026
+1974%

GRID K160Q 628

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	126 +2000%	6−7 −2000%
1440p	74 +2367%	3−4 −2367%
4K	58 +2800%	2−3 −2800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	9.52 +119%	20.83 −119%
1440p	16.20 +157%	41.67 −157%
4K	20.67 +202%	62.50 −202%

Titan X Pascal has 119% lower cost per frame in 1080p
Titan X Pascal has 157% lower cost per frame in 1440p
Titan X Pascal has 202% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	92 +2200%	4−5 −2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	79 +2533%	3−4 −2533%
Elden Ring	116 +2220%	5−6 −2220%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +2300%	3−4 −2300%
Counter-Strike 2	74 +2367%	3−4 −2367%
Cyberpunk 2077	75 +2400%	3−4 −2400%
Forza Horizon 4	251 +1992%	12−14 −1992%
Metro Exodus	150 +2043%	7−8 −2043%
Red Dead Redemption 2	125 +1983%	6−7 −1983%
Valorant	212 +2020%	10−11 −2020%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	168 +2000%	8−9 −2000%
Counter-Strike 2	63 +2000%	3−4 −2000%
Cyberpunk 2077	65 +2067%	3−4 −2067%
Dota 2	191 +2022%	9−10 −2022%
Elden Ring	145 +2317%	6−7 −2317%
Far Cry 5	146 +1986%	7−8 −1986%
Fortnite	150−160 +2114%	7−8 −2114%
Forza Horizon 4	194 +2056%	9−10 −2056%
Grand Theft Auto V	160 +2186%	7−8 −2186%
Metro Exodus	106 +2020%	5−6 −2020%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	250 +1983%	12−14 −1983%
Red Dead Redemption 2	58 +2800%	2−3 −2800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +2220%	5−6 −2220%
Valorant	117 +2240%	5−6 −2240%
World of Tanks	270−280 +2217%	12−14 −2217%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	64 +2033%	3−4 −2033%
Counter-Strike 2	55 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Cyberpunk 2077	55 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Dota 2	232 +2220%	10−11 −2220%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +2150%	4−5 −2150%
Forza Horizon 4	167 +1988%	8−9 −1988%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	146 +1986%	7−8 −1986%
Valorant	181 +2163%	8−9 −2163%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	103 +2475%	4−5 −2475%
Elden Ring	84 +2000%	4−5 −2000%
Grand Theft Auto V	103 +2475%	4−5 −2475%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +2088%	8−9 −2088%
Red Dead Redemption 2	37 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
World of Tanks	210−220 +2070%	10−11 −2070%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +2067%	3−4 −2067%
Counter-Strike 2	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +2040%	5−6 −2040%
Forza Horizon 4	122 +2340%	5−6 −2340%
Metro Exodus	101 +2425%	4−5 −2425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +2650%	2−3 −2650%
Valorant	110 +2100%	5−6 −2100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Dota 2	99 +2375%	4−5 −2375%
Elden Ring	44 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Grand Theft Auto V	99 +2375%	4−5 −2375%
Metro Exodus	36 +3500%	1−2 −3500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	114 +2180%	5−6 −2180%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	99 +2375%	4−5 −2375%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	53 +2550%	2−3 −2550%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +3300%	1−2 −3300%
Cyberpunk 2077	17	0−1
Dota 2	160 +2186%	7−8 −2186%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +2300%	2−3 −2300%
Fortnite	67 +2133%	3−4 −2133%
Forza Horizon 4	70 +2233%	3−4 −2233%
Valorant	58 +2800%	2−3 −2800%

This is how Titan X Pascal and GRID K160Q compete in popular games:

Titan X Pascal is 2000% faster in 1080p
Titan X Pascal is 2367% faster in 1440p
Titan X Pascal is 2800% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	33.88	1.63
Recency	2 August 2016	28 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	16 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	130 Watt

Titan X Pascal has a 1978.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

GRID K160Q, on the other hand, has 92.3% lower power consumption.

The Titan X Pascal is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K160Q in performance tests.

Be aware that Titan X Pascal 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.