
GRID P4-8Q vs GeForce GTX 670

GRID P4-8Q
Popular choices:

GeForce GTX 670
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. The GRID P4-8Q is positioned at rank #261 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GRID P4-8Q
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 670 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P4-8Q.
| Insight | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 670 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 670 holds the technical lead. Priced at $20 (vs $200), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 914.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+914.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) | ✅More affordable ($20) |
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 P4-8Q and GeForce GTX 670

GRID P4-8Q
The GRID P4-8Q is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in August 30 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 722 MHz. It has 1536 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,283 points.

GeForce GTX 670
The GeForce GTX 670 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 10 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 915 MHz to 980 MHz. It has 1344 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 170W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5,361 points. Launch price was $399.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P4-8Q scores 5,283 and the GeForce GTX 670 reaches 5,361 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P4-8Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce GTX 670 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,536 (GRID P4-8Q) vs 1,344 (GeForce GTX 670). Raw compute: 2.218 TFLOPS (GRID P4-8Q) vs 2.634 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 670).
| Feature | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5,283 | 5,361+1% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1536+14% | 1344 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.218 TFLOPS | 2.634 TFLOPS+19% |
| ROPs | 64+100% | 32 |
| TMUs | 96 | 112+17% |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB+414% | 112 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 4 GB of video memory. Bus width: 128-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GRID P4-8Q) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce GTX 670) — the GRID P4-8Q has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 256-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P4-8Q draws 100W versus the GeForce GTX 670's 170W — a 51.9% difference. The GRID P4-8Q is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P4-8Q) vs 500W (GeForce GTX 670). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 2x 6-pin.
| Feature | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 100W-41% | 170W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W-30% | 500W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 2x 6-pin |
| Length | — | 241mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 82 C |
| Perf/Watt | 52.8+68% | 31.5 |
Value Analysis
The GRID P4-8Q launched at $2000 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the GeForce GTX 670 launched at $399 and now averages $20. The GeForce GTX 670 costs 90% less ($180 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 26.4 (GRID P4-8Q) vs 268.1 (GeForce GTX 670) — the GeForce GTX 670 offers 915.5% better value. The GRID P4-8Q is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | GRID P4-8Q | GeForce GTX 670 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $2000 | $399-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $20-90% |
| Performance per Dollar | 26.4 | 268.1+916% |
| Codename | GM204 | GK104 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | May 10 2012 |
| Ranking | #535 | #424 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















