GRID K220Q vs Quadro CX
GRID K220Q
Popular choices:
Quadro CX
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 K220Q is positioned at rank 299 and the Quadro CX is on rank 383, so the GRID K220Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID K220Q
Performance Per Dollar Quadro CX
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GRID K220Q is significantly newer (2014 vs 2008). The GRID K220Q likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro CX lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro CX is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.8% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K220Q.
| Insight | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (265mm) | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K220Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K220Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $500), it costs 92% less, resulting in a 1103.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1103.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($40) | ⚠️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 GRID K220Q and Quadro CX
GRID K220Q
The GRID K220Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 2 2014. 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: 912 points. Launch price was $469.
Quadro CX
The Quadro CX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 947 points. Launch price was $1,999.
Graphics Performance
The GRID K220Q scores 912 and the Quadro CX reaches 947 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K220Q is built on Kepler while the Quadro CX uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K220Q) vs 192 (Quadro CX). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K220Q) vs 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro CX).
| Feature | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 912 | 947+4% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+700% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.289 TFLOPS+395% | 0.4623 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32+33% | 24 |
| TMUs | 128+100% | 64 |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+167% | 192 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| 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 K220Q comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro CX has 4 GB. The Quadro CX offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GRID K220Q) vs 192 KB (Quadro CX) — the GRID K220Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+167% | 192 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11_0 (GRID K220Q) vs 11.1 (10_0) (Quadro CX). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11_0 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID K220Q draws 225W versus the Quadro CX's 150W — a 40% difference. The Quadro CX is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K220Q) vs 350W (Quadro CX). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 265mm vs 267mm, occupying 2 vs 2 slots.
| Feature | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 150W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 265mm | 267mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | 2 | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 4.1 | 6.3+54% |
Value Analysis
The GRID K220Q launched at $469 MSRP and currently averages $40, while the Quadro CX launched at $1999 and now averages $500. The GRID K220Q costs 92% less ($460 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.8 (GRID K220Q) vs 1.9 (Quadro CX) — the GRID K220Q offers 1100% better value. The GRID K220Q is the newer GPU (2014 vs 2008).
| Feature | GRID K220Q | Quadro CX |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $469-77% | $1999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $40-92% | $500 |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.8+1100% | 1.9 |
| Codename | GK104 | GT200B |
| Release | July 2 2014 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #907 | #901 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID K220Q and Quadro CX
