GRID K260Q vs Radeon Pro WX 4170

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 K260Q vs Radeon Pro WX 4170 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 K260Q vs Radeon Pro WX 4170: 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 K260Q

2013

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 2 GB vs 4 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2013 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
134.3% HIGHER MSRP
$937 MSRPvs$400 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 3.1 vs 7.2 G3D/$ ($937 MSRP vs $400 MSRP).
❌350% higher power demand at 225W vs 50W.

Radeon Pro WX 4170

2016

Why buy it

✅Costs $537 less on MSRP ($400 MSRP vs $937 MSRP).
✅Delivers 128% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 7.2 vs 3.1 G3D/$ ($400 MSRP vs $937 MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (4 GB vs 2 GB).
✅Draws 50W instead of 225W, a 175W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌2016 hardware with 4 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GRID K260Q is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 2.8% in PassMark G3D (2,949 vs 2,870), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

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

GRID K260Q is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon Pro WX 4170 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $537 cheaper on MSRP at $400 vs $937, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 128% (7.2 vs 3.1), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon Pro WX 4170 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GRID K260Q has the stronger long-term case.

GRID K260Q vs Radeon Pro WX 4170 Technical Specifications

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

GRID K260Q

The GRID K260Q 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: 2,949 points. Launch price was $937.

Radeon Pro WX 4170

The Radeon Pro WX 4170 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 10 2016. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1125 MHz to 1201 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,870 points. Launch price was $399.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GRID K260Q scores 2,949 and the Radeon Pro WX 4170 reaches 2,870 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K260Q is built on Kepler while the Radeon Pro WX 4170 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K260Q) vs 1,024 (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K260Q) vs 2.46 TFLOPS (Radeon Pro WX 4170).

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon Pro WX 4170
G3D Mark Score	2,949+3%	2,870
Architecture	Kepler	GCN 4.0
Process Node	28 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	1536+50%	1024
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.289 TFLOPS	2.46 TFLOPS+7%
ROPs	32+100%	16
TMUs	128+100%	64
L1 Cache	128 KB	256 KB+100%
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon Pro WX 4170
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)

The GRID K260Q has 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon Pro WX 4170 carries 4 GB. Radeon Pro WX 4170 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the GRID K260Q and 64-bit on the Radeon Pro WX 4170. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GRID K260Q) vs 1 MB (Radeon Pro WX 4170) — the Radeon Pro WX 4170 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon Pro WX 4170
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	0.5 MB	1 MB+100%

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID K260Q draws 225W versus the Radeon Pro WX 4170's 50W — a 127.3% difference. The Radeon Pro WX 4170 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K260Q) vs 350W (Radeon Pro WX 4170). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon Pro WX 4170
TDP	225W	50W-78%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Slots	—	0
Temp (Load)	—	80°C
Perf/Watt	13.1	57.4+338%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GRID K260Q came in at $937, while the Radeon Pro WX 4170 launched at $400. On MSRP, Radeon Pro WX 4170 was 57.3% cheaper ($537 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 3.1 (GRID K260Q) vs 7.2 (Radeon Pro WX 4170) — the Radeon Pro WX 4170 offers 132.3% better value. The newer card here is Radeon Pro WX 4170 (2016 vs 2013).

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon Pro WX 4170
MSRP	$937	$400-57%
Performance per Dollar	3.1	7.2+132%
Codename	GK104	Baffin
Release	June 28 2013	November 10 2016
Ranking	#589	#526

Search GRID K260Q on Amazon

Search Radeon Pro WX 4170 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.