NVIDIA GeForce 945M vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 945M and NVIDIA GRID K2 occupy very different corners of the GPU world, yet their average benchmark scores land nearly on top of each other. The 945M is a mobile Maxwell part designed to slip into laptops, while the GRID K2 is a dual-slot Kepler accelerator built for datacenter virtualization with no display outputs. The data shows a 0.2% difference in average benchmark scores (8099 vs 8080), but that statistical tie hides a massive gap in raw specifications and a clear split in what each card is actually good for.

Where Each One Wins

The GRID K2 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GRID K2 scores 10602 against the 945M's 8099, a 23.6% advantage. That is the single benchmark where both cards appear, and it belongs entirely to the K2. If your workload is compute-heavy and uses OpenCL, the K2 is the clear pick.

The 945M wins on the basis of practicality and availability, not raw benchmark scores. It has a 42nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, identical to the GRID K2, but it is an MXM module with portable device dependent display outputs. That means it can actually drive a screen, which the K2 cannot do at all. For a laptop user who needs acceleration in a mobile chassis, the 945M is the only option that makes sense. The K2 has no display outputs and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, making it a server-only proposition.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different NVIDIA architectures. The 945M uses the GM107 chip on the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture, also on 28 nm at TSMC. The transistor counts tell a stark story: the K2 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the 945M has just 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. That is nearly double the silicon for the K2, but the transistor density is almost identical—12.6M / mm² for the 945M versus 12.0M / mm² for the K2.

The K2's larger die translates into far more execution resources. It has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The 945M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is more than double the shading units and triple the texture units on the K2. The architecture generations differ in feature support: both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 945M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the K2 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is limited to a single Geekbench OpenCL run, but the result is decisive. The GRID K2 scores 10602, beating the 945M's 8099 by 23.6%. That is a substantial margin, not a narrow win. In percentage terms, the K2 is nearly a quarter faster in this compute test, which aligns with its hardware advantage: 1536 shading units versus 640, and 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput against 1,305.6 GFLOPS.

The 945M's nearest rival list shows it is competitive with desktop cards of its era. It sits 0.4% ahead of the GTX 650 Ti Boost (8099 vs 8067) and 0.4% behind the GTX 950M (8099 vs 8135). The GRID K2's nearest rivals tell a similar story: it is 0.2% ahead of the GTX 650 Ti Boost and 0.3% ahead of the GTX 650 Ti. Both cards land in the same performance neighborhood as those older desktop parts, but the K2 pulls ahead when the workload scales to its full compute capacity.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reads like a generational and class divide. The 945M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s. That is over five times the memory bandwidth on the K2, a massive difference for any memory-bound workload.

Clock speeds differ in what the FACT PACK lists. The 945M has a base clock of 928 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, with memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The K2 has no base or boost clock listed, only memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The K2's pixel rate is 23.84 GPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s on the 945M, and its texture rate is 95.36 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s.

Power and physical requirements are night and day. The 945M is rated at 75 W TDP and uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface with no power connectors. The K2 draws 225 W, requires 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU. The K2 is a dual-slot card at 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the 945M is an MXM module with dimensions listed as portable device dependent. The K2 has no display outputs; the 945M's outputs are also listed as portable device dependent but exist for the host laptop.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The GRID K2 is 23.6% faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 10602 versus the 945M's 8099.

Q: Can the GRID K2 be used in a desktop PC for gaming?

A: No. The GRID K2 has no display outputs, so it cannot drive a monitor. It is designed for server virtualization workloads.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 945M is 0.4% ahead of the GTX 650 Ti Boost and 0.4% behind the GTX 950M. The GRID K2 is 0.2% ahead of the GTX 650 Ti Boost and 0.3% ahead of the GTX 650 Ti.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GRID K2 has 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is over five times the 28.80 GB/s of the 945M.

Q: Which card supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The 945M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the GRID K2?

A: The GRID K2 had a launch MSRP of 5,199 USD. The 945M has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: pick the GRID K2 if you need compute throughput and have the infrastructure to support it. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 23.6%, has 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s, and offers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. It also has 4 GB of VRAM and 1536 shading units, which are substantial advantages for any parallel workload. The trade-offs are severe: a 225 W TDP, a 550 W suggested PSU, dual-slot occupancy, and no display outputs. This is a card for a server rack, not a desktop.

Pick the 945M if you need a mobile GPU that can actually output to a screen. It has a 75 W TDP, runs on an MXM module, and supports Vulkan 1.4, which is newer than the K2's Vulkan 1.2.175. Its 8099 OpenCL score is only 0.2% below the K2's average benchmark score, so in typical mixed workloads the difference may be negligible. The 945M is end-of-life, as is the K2, but the 945M fits in a laptop and the K2 does not. For a portable system that needs acceleration without external power connectors, the 945M is the only viable choice. For a headless compute node where power and space are available, the K2's 23.6% OpenCL lead makes it the stronger option. The benchmark average scores are nearly identical, but the workload profile determines the correct pick.