GRID K260Q vs Radeon R7 260

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 R7 260 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 R7 260: 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

✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs 1 GB).
✅More future proof: Kepler (2012−2018) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌2013 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌
759.6% HIGHER MSRP
$937 MSRPvs$109 MSRP
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 3.1 vs 26.5 G3D/$ ($937 MSRP vs $109 MSRP).
❌136.8% higher power demand at 225W vs 95W.

Radeon R7 260

2013

Why buy it

✅Costs $828 less on MSRP ($109 MSRP vs $937 MSRP).
✅Delivers 743% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 26.5 vs 3.1 G3D/$ ($109 MSRP vs $937 MSRP).
✅Draws 95W instead of 225W, a 130W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 1 GB vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2013 hardware with 1 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% in PassMark G3D (2,949 vs 2,892), 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. The case is simple: 2 GB vs 1 GB of VRAM. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon R7 260 makes the most sense to buy today. It is $828 cheaper on MSRP at $109 vs $937, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 743% (26.5 vs 3.1), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon R7 260 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 R7 260 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 R7 260

The Radeon R7 260 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 17 2013. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1100 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 95W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,892 points. Launch price was $109.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GRID K260Q scores 2,949 and the Radeon R7 260 reaches 2,892 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID K260Q is built on Kepler while the Radeon R7 260 uses GCN 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID K260Q) vs 768 (Radeon R7 260). Raw compute: 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K260Q) vs 1.536 TFLOPS (Radeon R7 260).

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon R7 260
G3D Mark Score	2,949+2%	2,892
Architecture	Kepler	GCN 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1536+100%	768
Compute (TFLOPS)	2.289 TFLOPS+49%	1.536 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 K260Q	Radeon R7 260
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 R7 260 carries 1 GB. GRID K260Q 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 128-bit on the Radeon R7 260. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GRID K260Q) vs 256 KB (Radeon R7 260) — the GRID K260Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon R7 260
VRAM Capacity	2 GB+100%	1 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	512 KB+100%	256 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GRID K260Q draws 225W versus the Radeon R7 260's 95W — a 81.3% difference. The Radeon R7 260 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID K260Q) vs 400W (Radeon R7 260). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon R7 260
TDP	225W	95W-58%
Recommended PSU	350W-13%	400W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	1x 6-pin
Length	—	170mm
Height	—	112mm
Slots	—	2
Temp (Load)	—	80
Perf/Watt	13.1	30.4+132%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GRID K260Q came in at $937, while the Radeon R7 260 launched at $109. On MSRP, Radeon R7 260 was 88.4% cheaper ($828 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 3.1 (GRID K260Q) vs 26.5 (Radeon R7 260) — the Radeon R7 260 offers 754.8% better value.

Feature	GRID K260Q	Radeon R7 260
MSRP	$937	$109-88%
Performance per Dollar	3.1	26.5+755%
Codename	GK104	Bonaire
Release	June 28 2013	December 17 2013
Ranking	#589	#591

Search GRID K260Q on Amazon

Search Radeon R7 260 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.