GRID M3-3020 vs GRID K240Q
GRID M3-3020
Popular choices:
GRID K240Q
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 M3-3020 is positioned at rank 265 and the GRID K240Q is on rank 210, so the GRID K240Q offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID M3-3020
Performance Per Dollar GRID K240Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K240Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.6% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID M3-3020.
| Insight | GRID M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.6%) |
| 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 | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K240Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K240Q holds the technical lead. Priced at $40 (vs $50), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 27% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+27%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($40) |
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 M3-3020 and GRID K240Q
GRID M3-3020
The GRID M3-3020 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 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,500 points.
GRID K240Q
The GRID K240Q 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: 2,541 points. Launch price was $469.
Graphics Performance
The GRID M3-3020 scores 2,500 and the GRID K240Q reaches 2,541 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID M3-3020 is built on Maxwell while the GRID K240Q uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 640 (GRID M3-3020) vs 1,536 (GRID K240Q). Raw compute: 1.672 TFLOPS (GRID M3-3020) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K240Q).
| Feature | GRID M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,500 | 2,541+2% |
| 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 M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M3-3020) vs 0.5 MB (GRID K240Q) — the GRID M3-3020 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| 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 M3-3020 draws 250W versus the GRID K240Q's 225W — a 10.5% difference. The GRID K240Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID M3-3020) vs 350W (GRID K240Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GRID M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 250W | 225W-10% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 1mm |
| Slots | — | 0 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 10.0 | 11.3+13% |
Value Analysis
The GRID M3-3020 launched at $1000 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the GRID K240Q launched at $500 and now averages $40. The GRID K240Q costs 20% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.0 (GRID M3-3020) vs 63.5 (GRID K240Q) — the GRID K240Q offers 27% better value. The GRID M3-3020 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2013).
| Feature | GRID M3-3020 | GRID K240Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1000 | $500-50% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $40-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.0 | 63.5+27% |
| Codename | GM107 | GK104 |
| Release | May 18 2016 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #587 | #628 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID M3-3020 and GRID K240Q
