AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M265X and NVIDIA GRID K2 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, and the benchmark data reflects that divide. In the single available head-to-head test, the GRID K2 decisively outperforms the R9 M265X in Geekbench OpenCL compute, posting a score of 10602 against 8851. That is a 16.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial gap that places the two firmly in different performance tiers despite their shared 28 nm process node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are unambiguous. The NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 10602, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851. This gives the GRID K2 a 16.5% lead, which is a significant margin in compute workloads. The GRID K2’s raw compute advantage is even more pronounced when looking at peak specifications: the NVIDIA card delivers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD card manages only 800.0 GFLOPS. That is a 2.86x gap in theoretical peak throughput, though the actual benchmark delta is smaller due to real-world scaling and driver overhead.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective rivals reinforces the performance separation. The R9 M265X’s 8851 score places it just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8863) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon 550X (8918). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8743) by 1.2%. The GRID K2, meanwhile, sits in a similar percentile band—its 10602 OpenCL score is not directly compared to its nearest rivals in that test, but its average benchmark score of 8080 aligns it with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8067, 0.2% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8099, 0.2% behind). So while the GRID K2 wins the head-to-head decisively, both cards occupy the mid-to-low percentile range among all GPUs—44th percentile for the R9 M265X and 42nd for the GRID K2.

The deltaPct values in the head-to-head table confirm the winner: NVIDIA GRID K2 with a -16.5% deltaPct (negative meaning it is ahead of the AMD card). This is a clean win for NVIDIA in the one metric we have, but it is worth remembering the GRID K2’s average benchmark score (8080) is actually lower than its OpenCL score because it also has a Geekbench Metal score of 5557, pulling its average down. The R9 M265X has only the one OpenCL score, so its average (8851) equals that result.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 2.86x the 800.0 GFLOPS of the AMD Radeon R9 M265X. This aligns with the GRID K2’s 16.5% win in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How do these two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The GRID K2 has a 256-bit memory bus with 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R9 M265X uses a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s. The GRID K2’s 4 GB of GDDR5 memory is also double the R9 M265X’s 2 GB.

Q: Are these cards still relevant in modern systems?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The R9 M265X was released on 2014-03-20, and the GRID K2 on 2013-05-10. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), and both have OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan support (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA).

Q: What are the physical differences between the two cards?

A: The GRID K2 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, requires a 550 W power supply, and uses 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors. It has a 225 W TDP and no display outputs. The R9 M265X has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, or dimensions in the data.

Q: Which card has the larger die and more transistors?

A: The GRID K2 uses a GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The R9 M265X uses a Venus chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The GRID K2’s die is 2.39x larger by area.

Q: Is the GRID K2’s compute advantage consistent across all workloads?

A: The data only includes one head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), where the GRID K2 wins by 16.5%. Its Metal score of 5557 is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, suggesting performance varies by API. The R9 M265X has no Metal benchmark data available.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads: the NVIDIA GRID K2. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 16.5% and has a 2.86x advantage in FP32 peak throughput. Its larger memory pool (4 GB vs 2 GB), wider bus (256-bit vs 128-bit), and higher bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s) further cement its position as the more capable card for tasks that saturate memory or require parallel processing. The GRID K2 also has more execution resources—1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the AMD card.

However, the GRID K2 is not a straightforward recommendation for every user. It has no display outputs, making it unsuitable for direct monitor connection. It is also a dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP and a 550 W suggested PSU, whereas the R9 M265X has no listed power requirements, implying it is a lower-power mobile or embedded part. The R9 M265X’s only advantage in the data is its DirectX 12 (11_1) support, which is slightly newer than the GRID K2’s DirectX 12 (11_0). For gaming or general desktop use, the R9 M265X is the more practical choice despite its lower performance.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R9 M265X | NVIDIA GRID K2 |

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

| Chip | Venus | GK104 |

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

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 575 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 625 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 40 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.00 GPixel/s | 23.84 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 25.00 GTexel/s | 95.36 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 800.0 GFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 225 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 550 W |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | No outputs |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | Not listed | 267 mm (10.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-20 | 2013-05-10 |

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

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but their architectures diverge completely. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with a Venus chip, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 uses the Kepler architecture with a GK104 chip. The GRID K2 has a much larger implementation: 3,540 million transistors versus 1,500 million, and a 294 mm² die versus 123 mm². Interestingly, transistor density is nearly identical—12.2M per mm² for AMD and 12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA—meaning the GRID K2’s advantage comes from sheer scale, not design efficiency.

The GRID K2 also has a significantly higher memory clock (1250 MHz vs 1000 MHz) and effective data rate (5 Gbps vs 4 Gbps), combined with double the bus width (256-bit vs 128-bit) to achieve 2.5x the memory bandwidth. The GRID K2’s 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs dwarf the R9 M265X’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This resource disparity translates directly into the texture rate (95.36 GTexel/s vs 25.00 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (23.84 GPixel/s vs 10.00 GPixel/s) differences. Both cards lack ray tracing and tensor cores, and neither has FP16 support listed.

The GRID K2 is a server-oriented card, evidenced by its lack of display outputs and high power draw (225 W TDP, dual-slot, 550 W suggested PSU). The R9 M265X, by contrast, has no listed power or physical dimensions, suggesting a mobile or low-profile design. The GRID K2 also carries a launch MSRP of 5,199 USD, indicating enterprise positioning. API support is nearly identical, with the R9 M265X having a slight edge in DirectX (11_1 vs 11_0) and the GRID K2 having a slightly newer Vulkan (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170).

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GRID K2 wins in compute and memory-bound workloads. The 16.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 2.29x higher FP32 throughput and 2.5x more memory bandwidth, makes it the clear choice for tasks like scientific simulation, video encoding, or virtualization. Its 4 GB frame buffer is also double the R9 M265X’s 2 GB, which matters for large datasets. The GRID K2’s 128 TMUs give it a 3.81x advantage in texture rate, beneficial for texture-heavy rendering.

AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins in practical desktop scenarios. It has no listed power requirements, implying it can run in systems without the GRID K2’s 225 W TDP and 550 W PSU demand. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GRID K2’s DirectX 12 (11_0). While the R9 M265X lacks display output specs in the data, the GRID K2 explicitly has no outputs, so the AMD card is the only one of the two that could plausibly drive a monitor. For a system that needs basic graphics output and modest compute, the R9 M265X is the more flexible option, even though it loses the performance comparison.