CPU
GPU
FireStream 9370
Popular choices:
GRID K240Q
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FireStream 9370 is positioned at rank 246 and the GRID K240Q is on rank 210, so the GRID K240Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9370
Performance Per Dollar GRID K240Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K240Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the FireStream 9370 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K240Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K240Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $50), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 25.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+25.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Path of Exile 2
Counter-Strike 2
League of Legends
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FireStream 9370 and GRID K240Q
FireStream 9370
The FireStream 9370 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 23 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 825 MHz. It has 1600 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,528 points.
GRID K240Q
The GRID K240Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,541 points. Launch price was $469.
Graphics Performance
The FireStream 9370 scores 2,528 and the GRID K240Q reaches 2,541 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FireStream 9370 is built on TeraScale 2 while the GRID K240Q uses Kepler, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,600 (FireStream 9370) vs 1,536 (GRID K240Q). Raw compute: 2.64 TFLOPS (FireStream 9370) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K240Q).
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,528 | 2,541 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1600+4% | 1536 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.64 TFLOPS+15% | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 128+60% |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB+25% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FireStream 9370 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K240Q has 2 GB. The FireStream 9370 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.2 (FireStream 9370) vs 11_0 (GRID K240Q). OpenGL: 4.4 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 0.
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.2+2% | 11_0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6+5% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FireStream 9370) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GRID K240Q).
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | — |
| Decoder | UVD 2.2 | — |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The FireStream 9370 draws 225W versus the GRID K240Q's 225W — a 0% difference. The GRID K240Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FireStream 9370) vs 350W (GRID K240Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 1mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 1mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 11.2 | 11.3 |
Value Analysis
The FireStream 9370 launched at $800 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the GRID K240Q launched at $500 and now averages $40. The GRID K240Q costs 20% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.6 (FireStream 9370) vs 63.5 (GRID K240Q) — the GRID K240Q offers 25.5% better value. The GRID K240Q is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2010).
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $800 | $500-38% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $40-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.6 | 63.5+25% |
| Codename | Cypress | GK104 |
| Release | June 23 2010 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #631 | #628 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FireStream 9370 and GRID K240Q
