Intel Arc A310 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GRID K2 and Intel Arc A310 represent two very different eras of GPU design, and their benchmark data reflects that divide starkly. The GRID K2 is a Kepler-era compute card from 2013, while the Arc A310 is a modern Alchemist entry from 2022. The single head-to-head benchmark available shows a decisive victory for the newer Intel part, but the full picture is more nuanced when considering the GRID K2’s specialized legacy and the Arc A310’s broader feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is not close. The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607 points, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 manages 10,602 points. This gives Intel a 65.4% advantage, a massive margin that highlights the generational leap in compute throughput. The Arc A310’s score is nearly three times higher, which is a decisive win for the modern card in raw parallel processing workloads.

This result aligns with the cards’ positions in the overall benchmark hierarchy. The Arc A310’s average benchmark score is 7,550, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3100 (average score 7,580, delta -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (average score 7,472, delta 1%). The GRID K2, by contrast, has an average score of 8,080, placing it in the 42nd percentile. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (average score 8,067, delta 0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (average score 8,099, delta -0.2%).

Interestingly, the GRID K2’s average score is actually higher than the Arc A310’s average. This is because the GRID K2 has a second benchmark result in Geekbench Metal, scoring 5,557, which boosts its average. The Arc A310 lacks a Metal result but has many more data points, including Vulkan and multiple Passmark tests. The OpenCL head-to-head, however, is the only apples-to-apples comparison, and it heavily favors Intel. The delta percentage of -65.4% is listed from the perspective of the GRID K2, meaning the NVIDIA card trails by that amount.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc A310 wins the only shared benchmark, but its advantage extends to the diversity of its test results. It has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 28,964, which is nearly as strong as its OpenCL result. This suggests the Arc A310 excels in modern, cross-platform compute APIs. Its Passmark scores tell a more specific story: it scores 5,433 in G3D (DirectX gaming), 2,157 in GPU compute, and 625 in G2D (2D graphics). These are balanced results, showing competence across gaming, compute, and desktop tasks.

The NVIDIA GRID K2, with only two benchmark results, is harder to pigeonhole. Its Metal score of 5,557 is notably lower than its OpenCL score, indicating that Apple’s Metal API is not a strength for this Kepler card. The GRID K2’s higher average score (compared to the Arc A310) is driven by its OpenCL result, but that result is still far behind Intel’s. In practical terms, the GRID K2 is oriented toward server-side virtualization, but the data shows its compute performance is now overshadowed by a low-power desktop card.

For use-case analysis, the Arc A310 is the clear winner for anyone needing a modern, low-profile GPU with display outputs. It offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it suitable for multi-monitor setups. The GRID K2 has no outputs at all, meaning it is purely a compute or virtualization card. The Arc A310’s DirectX 12 Ultimate support also gives it a path to modern gaming, while the GRID K2 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is enormous. The GRID K2 is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors packed into a 294 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². The Arc A310, by contrast, uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture with the DG2-128 chip. It is built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 7,200 million transistors on a much smaller 157 mm² die. This gives it a transistor density of 45.9M / mm², nearly four times higher than the GRID K2.

The core configurations differ even more starkly. The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). It has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The Arc A310 has 768 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. It does have 6 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores. Despite having half the shading units, the Arc A310 achieves higher raw throughput thanks to its much higher clock speeds. The GRID K2 has no listed base or boost clock, while the Arc A310 runs at 1750 MHz for both.

Memory architecture also differs. The GRID K2 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Arc A310 also has 4 GB of memory, but it is GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 124.0 GB/s. Intel’s effective memory speed is 15.5 Gbps, compared to the GRID K2’s 5 Gbps effective, but the narrower bus limits overall bandwidth. The GRID K2 compensates with wider memory interface, but the Arc A310’s newer memory type offers better per-pin efficiency.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a clear divergence in design philosophy. The GRID K2 is a power-hungry dual-slot card with a 225 W TDP, requiring a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connector and a 550 W power supply. The Arc A310 is a single-slot card with a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of just 200 W. This makes the Arc A310 dramatically more efficient, a direct result of the newer process node.

The GRID K2’s dimensions are listed at 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the Arc A310’s dimensions are not specified. The GRID K2 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Arc A310 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The newer PCIe standard offers double the bandwidth per lane, so the Arc A310’s x8 connection likely provides similar or better throughput than the older x16.

Display outputs are a major differentiator. The GRID K2 has no outputs, confirming its role as a headless compute or virtualization card. The Arc A310 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, making it a fully functional desktop GPU. API support also differs: the GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Arc A310 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Arc A310 has Vulkan 1.4 versus the GRID K2’s Vulkan 1.2.175.

The production status for both is End-of-life, but their release dates are nearly a decade apart. The GRID K2 launched on 2013-05-10, while the Arc A310 launched on 2022-10-11. The GRID K2 had a launch MSRP of 5,199 USD; the Arc A310 has no listed launch MSRP. The Arc A310 has a predecessor (Xe Graphics) and successor (Battlemage), while the GRID K2 has neither listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The Intel Arc A310 scores 30,607, which is 65.4% higher than the NVIDIA GRID K2’s 10,602.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GRID K2 support display outputs?

A: No. The GRID K2 lists No outputs, while the Intel Arc A310 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0 connections.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two cards?

A: The GRID K2 has 3,540 million transistors, while the Arc A310 has 7,200 million. The Arc A310 also has a higher density at 45.9M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm².

Q: Which card has a higher TDP, and what are the power requirements?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 has a 225 W TDP, requiring a 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connector and a 550 W PSU. The Intel Arc A310 has a 30 W TDP with no connectors and a 200 W PSU suggestion.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A310 have ray tracing cores?

A: Yes, it has 6 ray tracing cores. The NVIDIA GRID K2 has none.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The GRID K2 has an average score of 8,080 (42nd percentile), while the Arc A310 has an average score of 7,550 (40th percentile). Despite the Arc A310 winning the head-to-head, the GRID K2 has a slightly higher average due to its Metal benchmark result.