AMD Radeon R7 250 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available between the NVIDIA GRID K2 and AMD Radeon R7 250 is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The GRID K2 scores 10,602 points, while the Radeon R7 250 trails at 7,557 points. That represents a 40.3% lead for the NVIDIA card — a substantial margin that places these two products in clearly different performance tiers despite their adjacent percentile rankings.

Context from the nearest rivals table reinforces this gap. The GRID K2’s average benchmark score of 8,080 sits just 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067) and 0.3% above the GTX 650 Ti (8,053). Meanwhile, the Radeon R7 250’s 7,557 average puts it only 0.1% ahead of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550) and 1.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472). The GRID K2 is competing with mid-range desktop GeForce cards from its era, while the R7 250 is closer to entry-level and mobile-class parts.

What makes the OpenCL result particularly telling is the architecture gap. The GRID K2 is a dual-GPU compute card with 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, delivering 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput. The R7 250, by contrast, packs 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with FP32 performance of 947.2 GFLOPS. The raw compute advantage is roughly 2.4x in the GRID K2’s favor, and the benchmark delta of 40.3% reflects a real-world workload that doesn’t fully saturate all of that theoretical headroom.

Memory bandwidth tells a similar story. The GRID K2 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 is limited to 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, producing just 28.80 GB/s. That is a 5.6x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA — a massive gap that would heavily impact memory-bound OpenCL workloads like image processing, filtering, and matrix operations.

The GRID K2 also leads in pixel and texture throughput. Its 23.84 GPixel/s pixel rate and 95.36 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the R7 250’s 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. These figures matter for graphics rendering pipelines and certain compute kernels that rely on rasterization-style operations.

In short, the head-to-head data shows a single, unambiguous winner. The GRID K2 outperforms the R7 250 by 40.3% in the one benchmark both cards share, and every architectural specification in the FACT PACK aligns with that result. The R7 250 does not win a single benchmark in the comparison set.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 leads with an average benchmark score of 8,080, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 250’s 7,557. The GRID K2 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 42 versus 41 for the R7 250.

Q: How big is the performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GRID K2 scores 10,602 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R7 250 scores 7,557. That gives NVIDIA a 40.3% advantage in that specific test.

Q: Do these cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan versions differ. The GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the R7 250 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 250 has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12 (11_0) for the GRID K2).

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 250 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing 28.80 GB/s. The GRID K2’s bandwidth is over five times higher.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GRID K2 has a 225 W TDP and requires a 550 W power supply with both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The R7 250 has a 55 W TDP, needs only a 250 W power supply, and draws all power from the PCIe slot with no additional connectors.

Q: Which card is physically larger?

A: The GRID K2 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length. The R7 250 is a single-slot card at 168 mm (6.6 inches) — a 99 mm difference in length.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. NVIDIA’s GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip built on the Kepler architecture, while AMD’s R7 250 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so process node differences are nonexistent. The transistor density is nearly identical as well: 12.0M per mm² for the GRID K2 and 12.2M per mm² for the R7 250.

The chip sizes, however, diverge sharply. The GRID K2’s GK104 die measures 294 mm² and packs 3,540 million transistors. The R7 250’s Cape Verde die is just 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. That is a 2.4x difference in die area and a 2.36x difference in transistor count. The GRID K2 is a much larger, more complex chip designed for datacenter compute and virtualization workloads, while the R7 250 is a compact desktop GPU aimed at basic graphics tasks.

Shading resources amplify this architectural gap. The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R7 250 has 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — exactly one-third of the shader count, one-quarter of the TMUs, and half the ROPs. The FP32 compute throughput tells the same story: 2.289 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS, which is a 2.42x difference.

Memory architecture is another major split. The GRID K2 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.0 GB/s. The R7 250 uses 1 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. The memory type alone — GDDR5 versus DDR3 — explains much of the bandwidth chasm, but the bus width difference doubles down on it. The GRID K2’s memory clock is listed at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R7 250 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The GRID K2’s display outputs are listed as "No outputs," which identifies it as a compute or virtualization card with no direct monitor connectivity. The R7 250, by contrast, offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2. This is a fundamental product category difference: the GRID K2 is designed for server-side rendering and GPU virtualization, while the R7 250 is a consumer desktop card.

Power delivery reflects these divergent roles. The GRID K2 draws 225 W TDP and needs both a 6-pin and 8-pin power connector, plus a 550 W power supply. The R7 250 sips 55 W TDP, requires no additional power connectors, and works with a 250 W power supply. The GRID K2 also occupies a dual-slot form factor versus the R7 250’s single-slot design.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GRID K2 | AMD Radeon R7 250 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GK104 | Cape Verde |

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | GRID (K2) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.289 TFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| DirectX Feature Level | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2013-10-07 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,199 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GRID K2 wins in every measurable performance category in the FACT PACK. It has the higher OpenCL benchmark score (10,602 versus 7,557), the higher average benchmark score (8,080 versus 7,557), and the higher percentile ranking (42 versus 41). Its shading units, TMUs, ROPs, FP32 throughput, pixel rate, texture rate, memory size, memory bandwidth, and transistor count are all superior. The GRID K2 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL processing, server-side rendering, or GPU-accelerated virtualization where its dual-GPU design and large memory pool can be fully utilized.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 wins in power efficiency and physical practicality. Its 55 W TDP is a fraction of the GRID K2’s 225 W, and it requires no additional power connectors or a large power supply. At 168 mm and single-slot width, it fits in compact cases where the 267 mm dual-slot GRID K2 would not. The R7 250 also has actual display outputs — DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 — making it usable as a desktop graphics card, whereas the GRID K2 has no outputs at all. The R7 250 also supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12 (11_0)) and has a marginally newer Vulkan driver version in its API support list.

For direct GPU compute performance, the GRID K2’s 40.3% OpenCL lead is the single most important data point. For a consumer building a low-power desktop PC, the R7 250’s 55 W power draw and integrated display connectivity are decisive practical advantages that no benchmark score can override.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two products built for entirely different purposes. The NVIDIA GRID K2 is a datacenter-oriented compute card with no display outputs, a 225 W TDP, and a launch MSRP of 5,199 USD. Its 4 GB GDDR5 memory, 2.289 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth make it a capable workhorse for OpenCL workloads, as evidenced by its 10,602 Geekbench OpenCL score — 40.3% ahead of the R7 250.

The AMD Radeon R7 250 is a low-power desktop card that prioritizes simplicity and efficiency. Its 55 W TDP, single-slot design, and onboard display outputs make it a practical choice for basic desktop use, light gaming, or media consumption. Its 7,557 OpenCL score is respectable for its class, landing it within 1.5% of the GeForce GTX 1650 and 0.3% of the Radeon Pro WX 3100 in the nearest rivals data.

Who should pick which? Choose the GRID K2 if the workload demands raw compute throughput and memory bandwidth — particularly in server environments where its lack of display outputs is irrelevant and its power draw is acceptable. Choose the R7 250 if the priority is a quiet, low-power, compact card that can plug into a monitor and handle everyday graphics tasks without requiring additional power cabling.

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the GRID K2 is the faster card by a 40.3% margin in OpenCL. But speed is not the only metric that matters. The R7 250 wins on efficiency, size, and usability, and those factors may outweigh raw performance for many real-world use cases. The GRID K2 is a specialized tool for a specific job. The R7 250 is a general-purpose card for everyday computing. Choose accordingly.