GRID K160Q vs Radeon R7 A360
GRID K160Q
Popular choices:
Radeon R7 A360
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 Radeon R7 A360 is on rank 209, so the Radeon R7 A360 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 Radeon R7 A360
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K160Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R7 A360.
| Insight | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K160Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K160Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $55), it costs 45% less, resulting in a 86.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+86.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($55) |
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 Radeon R7 A360
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.
Radeon R7 A360
The Radeon R7 A360 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 18 2015. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 616 points. Launch price was $109.
Graphics Performance
The GRID K160Q scores 628 and the Radeon R7 A360 reaches 616 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K160Q is built on Kepler while the Radeon R7 A360 uses GCN 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K160Q) vs 768 (Radeon R7 A360). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K160Q) vs 1.613 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 A360).
| Feature | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 628+2% | 616 |
| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+100% | 768 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS+42% | 1.613 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+167% | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 192 KB+50% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GRID K160Q) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 A360) — the GRID K160Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID K160Q draws 225W versus the Radeon R7 A360's 80W — a 95.1% difference. The Radeon R7 A360 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K160Q) vs 350W (Radeon R7 A360). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None.
| Feature | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 80W-64% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Perf/Watt | 2.8 | 7.7+175% |
Value Analysis
The GRID K160Q launched at $125 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Radeon R7 A360 launched at $109 and now averages $55. The GRID K160Q costs 45.5% less ($25 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 20.9 (GRID K160Q) vs 11.2 (Radeon R7 A360) — the GRID K160Q offers 86.6% better value. The Radeon R7 A360 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID K160Q | Radeon R7 A360 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $125 | $109-13% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-45% | $55 |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.9+87% | 11.2 |
| Codename | GK104 | Tobago |
| Release | June 28 2013 | June 18 2015 |
| Ranking | #589 | #576 |
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 Radeon R7 A360
