Intel Arc A380 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the Intel Arc A380 is the superior GPU in this comparison. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a staggering margin of 260.5%. The Arc A380 scores 38,224 points compared to the GRID K2's 10,602 points. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap in compute performance. The NVIDIA GRID K2, while a professional-grade product from 2013, is simply outclassed by the modern architecture and specifications of the Intel card.

Who should pick which? From a pure performance standpoint, the Intel Arc A380 is the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute or general 3D rendering. Its higher average benchmark score of 8,558 points versus the GRID K2's 8,080 points reinforces this, placing it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs compared to the K2's 42nd percentile. The GRID K2, however, has a distinct purpose. Its lack of display outputs and its dual-GPU server heritage suggest it was designed for virtual desktop infrastructure, not for a desktop workstation. Therefore, a buyer needing a physical display output for a local workstation should choose the Intel Arc A380. A buyer building or populating a virtualized server environment where raw OpenCL performance per card is lower but where the card's specific server-class form factor is required would be the only scenario where the GRID K2 makes sense, based on the data. However, for almost all other purposes, the Arc A380 is the definitive winner.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent completely different eras of design. The Intel Arc A380 is built on the Xe-HPG architecture, specifically the DG2-128 chip, and belongs to the Alchemist generation. It is fabricated on a modern 6 nm process at TSMC, allowing for a transistor density of 45.9M / mm². This is a stark contrast to the NVIDIA GRID K2, which uses the much older Kepler architecture (chip GK104) from the GRID generation. The K2 is built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC, but with a far lower transistor density of just 12.0M / mm².

The implications of this process difference are profound. The Arc A380 packs 7,200 million transistors into a smaller 157 mm² die. The GRID K2, despite having fewer transistors at 3,540 million, requires a much larger 294 mm² die. This modern process node gives the Arc A380 a massive efficiency advantage, which is reflected in their power and performance characteristics. The Intel card is a modern, feature-rich GPU supporting DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc A380 also features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, a technology entirely absent from the Kepler-based GRID K2. In terms of raw compute resources, the A380 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units, while the GRID K2 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the A380's architectural and clock advantages make it significantly faster. The Intel card also supports modern display outputs (1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0), whereas the GRID K2 has No outputs, confirming its server-only intent.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The Intel Arc A380 is dramatically faster, scoring 38,224 points in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the NVIDIA GRID K2's 10,602 points, a difference of 260.5%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has an average benchmark score of 8,558 points, which places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GRID K2 has an average score of 8,080 points, placing it in the 42nd percentile.

Q: Can the NVIDIA GRID K2 be used to connect a monitor?

A: No. The specification sheet lists its display outputs as "No outputs," indicating it is designed for server or virtualized environments, not for direct display connection.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 186.0 GB/s. The NVIDIA GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the difference in their power requirements?

A: The Intel Arc A380 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA GRID K2 has a much higher TDP of 225 W and requires a suggested PSU of 550 W.

Q: Which card is more modern in terms of API support?

A: The Intel Arc A380 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The A380 also has dedicated ray tracing cores, which the K2 lacks.

Specification Differences

The most significant differences between the two cards are in their process technology, memory, and power profile.

• Process Node: The Intel Arc A380 uses a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 uses a 28 nm process.
• Die Size: The A380 has a smaller die at 157 mm² compared to the K2's 294 mm².
• Transistors: The A380 contains 7,200 million transistors, over double the K2's 3,540 million.
• Memory Size: The A380 has 6 GB GDDR6, while the K2 has 4 GB GDDR5.
• Memory Bus Width: The A380 uses a 96-bit bus, while the K2 uses a 256-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The A380 achieves 186.0 GB/s, which is higher than the K2's 160.0 GB/s.
• Shading Units: The A380 has 1024 units versus the K2's 1536.
• Texture Mapping Units: The A380 has 64 TMUs versus the K2's 128.
• Ray Tracing Cores: The A380 has 8 RT cores; the K2 has none.
• FP32 Performance: The A380 delivers 4.198 TFLOPS, nearly double the K2's 2.289 TFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The A380 supports 8.397 TFLOPS (2:1); the K2 has no listed FP16 performance.
• Pixel Rate: The A380 has a pixel rate of 65.60 GPixel/s, far exceeding the K2's 23.84 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The A380's texture rate is 131.2 GTexel/s, compared to the K2's 95.36 GTexel/s.
• TDP: The A380 consumes 75 W, while the K2 consumes 225 W.
• Power Connectors: The A380 needs a single 1x 8-pin connector, while the K2 needs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin.
• Suggested PSU: The A380 suggests a 250 W PSU; the K2 suggests a 550 W PSU.
• Bus Interface: The A380 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the K2 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: The A380 has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0; the K2 has No outputs.
• DirectX Support: The A380 supports 12 Ultimate (12_2); the K2 supports 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan Support: The A380 supports 1.4; the K2 supports 1.2.175.
• Release Date: The A380 was released in 2022-06-13, while the K2 was released in 2013-05-10.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, tells a one-sided story. The Intel Arc A380 scores 38,224 points, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 manages only 10,602 points. This gives the Arc A380 a win with a 260.5% performance advantage. This is a massive delta that underscores the architectural and process node advantages of the newer Intel part. The A380's score is so high that it alone pushes its average benchmark score to 8,558, while the K2's average of 8,080 is dragged down by its low OpenCL result. Data from other benchmarks is limited, but the available figures support this trend. In Passmark's G3D test, the A380 scores 6,252 points, a result that is consistent with its 44th percentile standing. The GRID K2 has no Passmark scores in the data, but its lower Geekbench Metal score of 5,557 (compared to the A380's OpenCL score) suggests it is not competitive in modern compute environments. The A380 also shows strength in DirectX 12, scoring 35 in Passmark's DX12 test, though the K2 has no comparable score. In terms of relative standing, the A380's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro W5170M with an average score of 8,595 (a -0.4% delta), while the GRID K2's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 945M with 8,099 (a -0.2% delta). This indicates that while both cards are in a similar performance tier according to average scores, the A380 is at the top of that tier, and the K2 is not.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the Intel Arc A380 wins in every measured performance category. Its 260.5% lead in OpenCL makes it the definitive choice for any GPU-accelerated compute task, including rendering, simulation, and machine learning inference. Its higher pixel rate (65.60 GPixel/s vs 23.84 GPixel/s) and texture rate (131.2 GTexel/s vs 95.36 GTexel/s) suggest it will also excel in traditional 3D rasterization workloads. The A380’s support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 makes it future-proof for modern game engines and graphics APIs. For a desktop user needing a display output, the A380 is the only option, as it provides 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 2.0. Its lower TDP of 75 W and suggested PSU of 250 W also make it a far more manageable component for a standard workstation build.

The NVIDIA GRID K2, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its only potential advantage lies in its design purpose, which is not reflected in these specific tests. With No outputs, it is exclusively for server environments. Its higher TDP of 225 W and need for a 550 W PSU suggest it was designed for a chassis with dedicated power delivery. The K2’s older PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while having more lanes, is a less capable standard than the A380's PCIe 4.0 x8. Therefore, the GRID K2's only "win" is its form factor and purpose as a server-side virtualization card, a use case that the Intel Arc A380, with its display outputs and consumer-oriented design, is not intended to serve. For any application where compute performance, API support, or display capability is required, the Intel Arc A380 is the unequivocal winner.