CPU
GPU
FireStream 9370
Popular choices:
GRID M10-8Q
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 M10-8Q is on rank 346, so the FireStream 9370 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 M10-8Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GRID M10-8Q is significantly newer (2016 vs 2010). The GRID M10-8Q likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FireStream 9370 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID M10-8Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% 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 M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The FireStream 9370 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FireStream 9370 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $500), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 874.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+874.2%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($50) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($500) |
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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FireStream 9370 and GRID M10-8Q
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 M10-8Q
The GRID M10-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1033 MHz to 1306 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,595 points.
Graphics Performance
The FireStream 9370 scores 2,528 and the GRID M10-8Q reaches 2,595 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FireStream 9370 is built on TeraScale 2 while the GRID M10-8Q uses Maxwell, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,600 (FireStream 9370) vs 640 (GRID M10-8Q). Raw compute: 2.64 TFLOPS (FireStream 9370) vs 1.672 TFLOPS (GRID M10-8Q).
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,528 | 2,595+3% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1600+150% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.64 TFLOPS+58% | 1.672 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+100% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 320 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M10-8Q 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. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (FireStream 9370) vs 2 MB (GRID M10-8Q) — the GRID M10-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.2 (FireStream 9370) vs 12 (12_1) (GRID M10-8Q). OpenGL: 4.4 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 0.
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.2 | 12 (12_1)+7% |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6+5% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 0 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (FireStream 9370) vs NVENC (4th Gen) (GRID M10-8Q). Decoder: UVD 2.2 vs NVDEC (2nd Gen). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FireStream 9370) vs H.264,H.265 (GRID M10-8Q).
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC (4th Gen) |
| Decoder | UVD 2.2 | NVDEC (2nd Gen) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,H.265 |
Power & Dimensions
The FireStream 9370 draws 225W versus the GRID M10-8Q's 225W — a 0% difference. The GRID M10-8Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FireStream 9370) vs 350W (GRID M10-8Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 267mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85.
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 267mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 11.2 | 11.5+3% |
Value Analysis
The FireStream 9370 launched at $800 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the GRID M10-8Q launched at $2500 and now averages $500. The FireStream 9370 costs 90% less ($450 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.6 (FireStream 9370) vs 5.2 (GRID M10-8Q) — the FireStream 9370 offers 873.1% better value. The GRID M10-8Q is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2010).
| Feature | FireStream 9370 | GRID M10-8Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $800-68% | $2500 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50-90% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.6+873% | 5.2 |
| Codename | Cypress | GM107 |
| Release | June 23 2010 | May 18 2016 |
| Ranking | #631 | #622 |
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 M10-8Q
