GRID P40-8Q vs GeForce RTX 2050
GRID P40-8Q
Popular choices:
GeForce RTX 2050
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 P40-8Q is positioned at rank #265 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 P40-8Q
Performance Per Dollar GeForce RTX 2050
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce RTX 2050 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce RTX 2050 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GRID P40-8Q lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce RTX 2050 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GRID P40-8Q.
| Insight | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Turing (2018−2022)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | ✨ DLSS 3/4 + Frame Gen Support |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (267mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce RTX 2050 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $150 (vs $150), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 2.8% better value per dollar than the GRID P40-8Q.
| Insight | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 P40-8Q and GeForce RTX 2050
GRID P40-8Q
The GRID P40-8Q 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: 7,507 points.
GeForce RTX 2050
The GeForce RTX 2050 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in September 20 2018. It features the Turing architecture. The core clock ranges from 1515 MHz to 1710 MHz. It has 2944 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 215W. Manufactured using 12 nm process technology. It features 46 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,714 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
The GRID P40-8Q scores 7,507 and the GeForce RTX 2050 reaches 7,714 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GRID P40-8Q is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the GeForce RTX 2050 uses Turing, both on 28 nm vs 12 nm. Shader units: 2,048 (GRID P40-8Q) vs 2,944 (GeForce RTX 2050). Raw compute: 4.825 TFLOPS (GRID P40-8Q) vs 10.07 TFLOPS (GeForce RTX 2050). Boost clocks: 1178 MHz vs 1710 MHz.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,507 | 7,714+3% |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | Turing |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Shading Units | 2048 | 2944+44% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 4.825 TFLOPS | 10.07 TFLOPS+109% |
| Boost Clock | 1178 MHz | 1710 MHz+45% |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 184+44% |
| L1 Cache | 0.75 MB | 2.9 MB+287% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | DLSS 2.0 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 / AFMF (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | NVIDIA Reflex |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 4 GB of GDDR6. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GRID P40-8Q) vs 4 MB (GeForce RTX 2050) — the GeForce RTX 2050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 4 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12.0 (GRID P40-8Q) vs 12.2 (GeForce RTX 2050). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.3. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 0 vs 4.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12.0 | 12.2+2% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.3+18% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 0 | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 4.0 (GRID P40-8Q) vs NVENC 8.0 (GeForce RTX 2050). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP7 vs PureVideo HD VP11. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 (GRID P40-8Q) vs MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) (GeForce RTX 2050).
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 4.0 | NVENC 8.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP7 | PureVideo HD VP11 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9 | MPEG-2,H.264,HEVC,VP9,AV1 (Decode) |
Power & Dimensions
The GRID P40-8Q draws 225W versus the GeForce RTX 2050's 215W — a 4.5% difference. The GeForce RTX 2050 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GRID P40-8Q) vs 300W (GeForce RTX 2050). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 6-pin. Card length: 267mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots.
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 225W | 215W-4% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 6-pin |
| Length | 267mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 33.4 | 35.9+7% |
Value Analysis
The GRID P40-8Q launched at $3000 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the GeForce RTX 2050 launched at $150 and now averages $150. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 50.0 (GRID P40-8Q) vs 51.4 (GeForce RTX 2050) — the GeForce RTX 2050 offers 2.8% better value. The GeForce RTX 2050 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2015).
| Feature | GRID P40-8Q | GeForce RTX 2050 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $3000 | $150-95% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 50.0 | 51.4+3% |
| Codename | GM204 | TU104 |
| Release | August 30 2015 | September 20 2018 |
| Ranking | #505 | #94 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GRID P40-8Q and GeForce RTX 2050
