
Radeon R6 vs GRID K160Q

Radeon R6
Popular choices:

GRID K160Q
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar GRID K160Q
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R6 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2013). The Radeon R6 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GRID K160Q lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K160Q is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.6% higher G3D Mark score and 100+% more VRAM (512 MB vs 0 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R6.
| Insight | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.6%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.6%) |
| Longevity | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K160Q offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $30 versus $49 for the Radeon R6, it costs 39% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 67.6% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+67.6%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅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 Radeon R6 and GRID K160Q

Radeon R6
The Radeon R6 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1082 MHz to 1218 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 612 points.

GRID K160Q
The GRID K160Q 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: 628 points. Launch price was $937.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R6 scores 612 and the GRID K160Q reaches 628 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R6 is built on GCN 4.0 while the GRID K160Q uses Kepler, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 512 (Radeon R6) vs 1,536 (GRID K160Q). Raw compute: 1.247 TFLOPS (Radeon R6) vs 2.289 TFLOPS (GRID K160Q).
| Feature | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 612 | 628+3% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 1536+200% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.247 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS+84% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 32 | 128+300% |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R6 comes with 0 MB of VRAM, while the GRID K160Q has 512 MB. The GRID K160Q offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R6 draws 50W versus the GRID K160Q's 225W — a 127.3% difference. The Radeon R6 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R6) vs 350W (GRID K160Q). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-78% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Slots | 0 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 12.2+336% | 2.8 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R6 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GRID K160Q launched at $125 and now averages $30. The GRID K160Q costs 38.8% less ($19 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 12.5 (Radeon R6) vs 20.9 (GRID K160Q) — the GRID K160Q offers 67.2% better value. The Radeon R6 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R6 | GRID K160Q |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $125 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $30-39% |
| Performance per Dollar | 12.5 | 20.9+67% |
| Codename | Polaris 23 | GK104 |
| Release | May 13 2019 | June 28 2013 |
| Ranking | #757 | #589 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











