GRID K160Q vs FirePro V3900
GRID K160Q
Popular choices:
FirePro V3900
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 GRID K160Q is positioned at rank 213 and the FirePro V3900 is on rank 206, so the FirePro V3900 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID K160Q
Performance Per Dollar FirePro V3900
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro V3900 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K160Q.
| Insight | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro V3900 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FirePro V3900 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $30), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 0.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+0.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 GRID K160Q and FirePro V3900
GRID K160Q
The GRID K160Q 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: 628 points. Launch price was $937.
FirePro V3900
The FirePro V3900 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 24 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 725 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 631 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID K160Q scores 628 and the FirePro V3900 reaches 631 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K160Q is built on Kepler while the FirePro V3900 uses TeraScale 3, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K160Q) vs 1,280 (FirePro V3900). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K160Q) vs 1.856 TFLOPS (FirePro V3900).
| Feature | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 628 | 631 |
| Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale 3 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+20% | 1280 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS+23% | 1.856 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128+60% | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 320 KB+150% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GRID K160Q comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the FirePro V3900 has 1 GB. The FirePro V3900 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID K160Q draws 225W versus the FirePro V3900's 150W — a 40% difference. The FirePro V3900 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K160Q) vs 350W (FirePro V3900). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 150W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 168mm |
| Height | — | 69mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 2.8 | 4.2+50% |
Value Analysis
The GRID K160Q launched at $125 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the FirePro V3900 launched at $119 and now averages $30. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 20.9 (GRID K160Q) vs 21.0 (FirePro V3900) — the FirePro V3900 offers 0.5% better value. The GRID K160Q is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2011).
| Feature | GRID K160Q | FirePro V3900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $125 | $119-5% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.9 | 21.0 |
| Codename | GK104 | Cayman |
| Release | June 28 2013 | May 24 2011 |
| Ranking | #589 | #656 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID K160Q and FirePro V3900
