GRID K160Q vs Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B

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.

GRID K160Q vs Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GRID K160Q vs Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GRID K160Q

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 225W instead of 300W, a 75W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌2013 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
5% HIGHER MSRP
$125 MSRPvs$119 MSRP

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B

2025

Why buy it

✅Costs $6 less on MSRP ($119 MSRP vs $125 MSRP).
✅Better long-term bet: RDNA 4.0 (2025) on 4nm gives it a newer hardware base for upcoming games.
✅More future proof: RDNA 4.0 (2025) on 4nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌33.3% higher power demand at 300W vs 225W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 0.2% in PassMark G3D (629 vs 628), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: the newer upscaling stack, FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 (2025) instead of no meaningful modern upscaling stack, a 4nm process instead of 28nm, 64 vs 0 ray-tracing units, and a newer 2025 generation instead of 2013. That gives it the more rounded hardware package for newer games.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B makes the most sense to buy today. It is $6 cheaper on MSRP at $119 vs $125, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 5.2% (5.3 vs 5.0), so the value case lines up with the gaming result.

GRID K160Q vs Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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 PRO A10-9700B

The Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 23 2025. It features the Bristol Ridge architecture. The core clock ranges from 1660 MHz to 2920 MHz. It has 4096 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 64 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 629 points. Launch price was $1,299.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GRID K160Q scores 628 and the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B reaches 629 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K160Q is built on Kepler while the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B uses Bristol Ridge, both on 28 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K160Q) vs 4,096 (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K160Q) vs 47.84 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B).

Feature	GRID K160Q	Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B
G3D Mark Score	628	629
Architecture	Kepler	Bristol Ridge
Process Node	28 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	1536	4096+167%
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.289 TFLOPS	47.84 TFLOPS+1990%
ROPs	32	128+300%
TMUs	128	256+100%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	8 MB+1500%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GRID K160Q	Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 512 MB of video memory. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the GRID K160Q and System on the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GRID K160Q) vs 8 MB (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B) — the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GRID K160Q	Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	Shared
Bus Width	64-bit	System
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	8 MB+1500%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID K160Q draws 225W versus the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B's 300W — a 28.6% difference. The GRID K160Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K160Q) vs 350W (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GRID K160Q	Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B
TDP	225W-25%	300W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Perf/Watt	2.8+33%	2.1

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GRID K160Q came in at $125, while the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B launched at $119. On MSRP, Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B was 4.8% cheaper ($6 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 5.0 (GRID K160Q) vs 5.3 (Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B) — the Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B offers 6% better value. The newer card here is Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B (2025 vs 2013).

Feature	GRID K160Q	Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B
MSRP	$125	$119-5%
Performance per Dollar	5.0	5.3+6%
Codename	GK104	Navi 48
Release	June 28 2013	July 23 2025
Ranking	#589	#23

Search GRID K160Q on Amazon

Search Radeon R7 PRO A10-9700B on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.