GRID M10-4Q vs GRID K260Q
GRID M10-4Q
Popular choices:
GRID K260Q
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 M10-4Q is positioned at rank 344 and the GRID K260Q is on rank 247, so the GRID K260Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID M10-4Q
Performance Per Dollar GRID K260Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID M10-4Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID K260Q.
| Insight | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K260Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K260Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $340), it costs 96% less, resulting in a 2145.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2145.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($340) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 M10-4Q and GRID K260Q
GRID M10-4Q
The GRID M10-4Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 18 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1033 MHz to 1306 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,977 points.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GRID M10-4Q scores 2,977 and the GRID K260Q reaches 2,949 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID M10-4Q is built on Maxwell while the GRID K260Q uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 640 (GRID M10-4Q) vs 1,536 (GRID K260Q). Raw compute: 1.672 TFLOPS (GRID M10-4Q) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K260Q).
| Feature | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,977 | 2,949 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 640 | 1536+140% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.672 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS+37% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 40 | 128+220% |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB+150% | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GRID M10-4Q) vs 0.5 MB (GRID K260Q) — the GRID M10-4Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID M10-4Q draws 225W versus the GRID K260Q's 225W — a 0% difference. The GRID K260Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID M10-4Q) vs 350W (GRID K260Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 13.2 | 13.1 |
Value Analysis
The GRID M10-4Q launched at $2805 MSRP and currently averages $340, while the GRID K260Q launched at $937 and now averages $15. The GRID K260Q costs 95.6% less ($325 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 8.8 (GRID M10-4Q) vs 196.6 (GRID K260Q) — the GRID K260Q offers 2134.1% better value. The GRID M10-4Q is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID M10-4Q | GRID K260Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2805 | $937-67% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $340 | $15-96% |
| Performance per Dollar | 8.8 | 196.6+2134% |
| Codename | GM107 | GK104 |
| Release | May 18 2016 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #622 | #589 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID M10-4Q and GRID K260Q
