
GRID M10-2Q vs GeForce GTX 950A

GRID M10-2Q
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 950A
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 M10-2Q is positioned at rank 342 and the GeForce GTX 950A is on rank 286, so the GeForce GTX 950A offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID M10-2Q
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GTX 950A
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID M10-2Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 950A.
| Insight | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.6%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.6%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 950A offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 950A holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $150), it costs 80% less, resulting in a 382.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+382.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
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 M10-2Q and GeForce GTX 950A

GRID M10-2Q
The GRID M10-2Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 557 MHz to 1178 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,692 points.

GeForce GTX 950A
The GeForce GTX 950A is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 993 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,599 points.
Graphics Performance
The GRID M10-2Q scores 2,692 and the GeForce GTX 950A reaches 2,599 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID M10-2Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 950A uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID M10-2Q) vs 640 (GeForce GTX 950A). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID M10-2Q) vs 1.439 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 950A). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 1124 MHz.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,692+4% | 2,599 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048+220% | 640 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS+235% | 1.439 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz+5% | 1124 MHz |
| ROPs | 64+300% | 16 |
| TMUs | 128+220% | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB+140% | 320 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of video memory. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID M10-2Q draws 225W versus the GeForce GTX 950A's 75W — a 100% difference. The GeForce GTX 950A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID M10-2Q) vs 350W (GeForce GTX 950A). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 75W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 1mm | — |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 12.0 | 34.7+189% |
Value Analysis
The GRID M10-2Q launched at $2500 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce GTX 950A launched at $159 and now averages $30. The GeForce GTX 950A costs 80% less ($120 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 17.9 (GRID M10-2Q) vs 86.6 (GeForce GTX 950A) — the GeForce GTX 950A offers 383.8% better value.
| Feature | GRID M10-2Q | GeForce GTX 950A |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2500 | $159-94% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $30-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 17.9 | 86.6+384% |
| Codename | GM204 | GM107 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | March 13 2015 |
| Ranking | #433 | #621 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















