NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GRID K2 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 represent two very different approaches to GPU design, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The GRID K2, a 2013-era Kepler-based virtualization card, is matched against the 2019 Turing-based GeForce GTX 1650 in this head-to-head comparison. The data shows a clear generation gap, with the GTX 1650 dominating in raw compute performance while the GRID K2 retains advantages in memory bandwidth and raw transistor count. Benchmark results and specification differences paint a picture of two cards built for entirely different purposes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is limited to a single shared benchmark, but the disparity in that test is substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 1650 scores 29,629 points against the GRID K2's 10,602 points. This represents a delta of -64.2% from the perspective of the GRID K2, meaning the GTX 1650 delivers roughly 2.8 times the OpenCL compute performance. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational leap evident in a single metric.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this trend, though with a narrower margin than the OpenCL test suggests. The GRID K2 holds an average benchmark score of 8,080 across its two recorded tests (Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL), while the GTX 1650 averages 7,472 across ten tests. The GTX 1650's average is dragged down by its low scores in legacy DirectX tests — it scores 39 in Passmark DirectX 10, 58 in DirectX 11, and 35 in DirectX 12 — which are not part of the GRID K2's benchmark suite. In the single test where both GPUs appear, the GTX 1650's advantage is overwhelming.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both cards sit in similar percentile positions. The GRID K2 ranks in the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost at a delta of +0.2%. The GTX 1650 sits in the 40th percentile, with the Intel Arc A310 as its nearest rival at -1.0%. The GTX 1650's average score of 7,472 places it just ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (0.3% delta) and Intel UHD Graphics 750 (0.4% delta), but behind the Intel Arc A310 by 1%. The GRID K2's average of 8,080 places it ahead of the GTX 650 Ti (0.3%), GTX 650 Ti Boost (0.2%), and GTX 880M (0.5%), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce 945M by -0.2%.

The data indicates that while the GRID K2 posts a higher average benchmark score, this is a function of test selection rather than raw capability. The GRID K2's two benchmarks are both Geekbench compute tests, whereas the GTX 1650's suite includes legacy DirectX 9, 10, and 11 tests where it scores in the 35-124 range. In the only directly comparable test, the GTX 1650 is decisively ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins the only head-to-head benchmark outright, but its strengths extend beyond that single test. Its FP32 compute rating of 2.984 TFLOPS exceeds the GRID K2's 2.289 TFLOPS, indicating superior raw floating-point throughput for general compute workloads. The GTX 1650 also supports FP16 at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), a capability the GRID K2 lacks entirely. This makes the GTX 1650 better suited for modern compute tasks that leverage half-precision arithmetic, such as certain machine learning inference workloads.

The GRID K2, despite its lower compute ratings, maintains a few structural advantages. Its memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s surpasses the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s, and it uses a 256-bit memory bus versus the GTX 1650's 128-bit bus. This gives the GRID K2 an edge in memory-bound scenarios where data throughput is the limiting factor. Additionally, the GRID K2 has a higher texture fill rate at 95.36 GTexel/s compared to the GTX 1650's 93.24 GTexel/s, a marginal but real advantage. The GRID K2 also has more shading units (1536 vs 896), more TMUs (128 vs 56), and more transistors (3,540 million vs 4,700 million, though the GTX 1650 has more total transistors) — but these architectural resources do not translate into benchmark victories.

The GTX 1650's pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s is more than double the GRID K2's 23.84 GPixel/s, making it significantly faster at rasterization and fill-rate-bound operations. In gaming workloads, the GTX 1650's display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a) are a practical advantage over the GRID K2's lack of display outputs entirely. The GTX 1650 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, meaning newer graphics APIs favor the GTX 1650.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 has a higher average benchmark score of 8,080 compared to the GTX 1650's 7,472. However, this comparison is based on different test suites, with the GRID K2 having only two Geekbench tests and the GTX 1650 having ten tests including several low-scoring legacy DirectX benchmarks.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 in the shared Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29,629 versus the GRID K2's 10,602 in Geekbench OpenCL, a delta of -64.2% from the GRID K2's perspective. This means the GTX 1650 is approximately 2.8 times faster in this specific compute benchmark.

Q: What is the GRID K2's closest competitor in benchmark performance?

A: According to the data, the GRID K2's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost with an average score of 8,067, representing a delta of +0.2%. The GRID K2's score of 8,080 is nearly identical to this competitor.

Q: Does the GRID K2 have any advantage in memory specifications?

A: Yes, the GRID K2 has a memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s and a 256-bit bus width, both of which exceed the GTX 1650's 128.1 GB/s bandwidth and 128-bit bus width. Both GPUs have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these two GPUs?

A: The GTX 1650 has a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², nearly double the GRID K2's 12.0M per mm². The GTX 1650 achieves this on a 12 nm process with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the GRID K2 uses a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is power consumption: the GRID K2 draws 225 W TDP and requires 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin power connectors with a suggested 550 W PSU, while the GTX 1650 draws only 75 W TDP, needs no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. This makes the GTX 1650 dramatically more power-efficient. The GTX 1650 has a base clock of 1485 MHz and boost clock of 1665 MHz, while the GRID K2 lists no base or boost clock. Memory clocks differ as well: the GRID K2 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) while the GTX 1650 runs at 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective).

The GRID K2 is physically larger at 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length versus the GTX 1650's 229 mm (9 inches). The GTX 1650 has specified dimensions including height of 111 mm (4.4 inches) and width of 35 mm (1.4 inches), while the GRID K2 only lists length. The GRID K2 has no display outputs, while the GTX 1650 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The GRID K2's launch MSRP was 5,199 USD, and its release date was 2013-05-10; the GTX 1650's launch MSRP was 149 USD, and its release date was 2019-04-22.

Architecture Differences

The GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip based on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC with 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. The transistor density reflects this: 12.0M / mm² for the GRID K2 versus 23.5M / mm² for the GTX 1650.

The GRID K2 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer execution units, the GTX 1650 achieves higher FP32 performance (2.984 TFLOPS vs 2.289 TFLOPS) and adds FP16 support at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), which the GRID K2 lacks entirely. The GRID K2 belongs to the GRID (K2) generation with no series designation, while the GTX 1650 is part of the GeForce 10-series (despite its 16-series generation label) with a predecessor of GeForce 10 and successor of GeForce 20.

The GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The GRID K2's production status is end-of-life, as is the GTX 1650's. The GRID K2's pixel rate is 23.84 GPixel/s and texture rate is 95.36 GTexel/s; the GTX 1650's pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the GTX 1650 is the superior GPU for nearly all compute and graphics workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 29,629 versus the GRID K2's 10,602 represents a 64.2% advantage that cannot be offset by the GRID K2's higher average benchmark score, which is an artifact of test selection. The GTX 1650's FP32 performance of 2.984 TFLOPS exceeds the GRID K2's 2.289 TFLOPS, and its FP16 capability is entirely absent from the GRID K2.

The GRID K2's advantages are confined to memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 128.1 GB/s), bus width (256-bit vs 128-bit), and texture fill rate (95.36 GTexel/s vs 93.24 GTexel/s). These are meaningful for specific memory-bound workloads but do not translate into benchmark victories. The GRID K2's 225 W TDP and required 550 W PSU also make it a far more demanding component than the GTX 1650's 75 W TDP and 250 W PSU suggestion.

The GTX 1650 also offers practical advantages: display outputs, modern API support including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1), and a smaller physical footprint. Its launch MSRP of 149 USD versus the GRID K2's 5,199 USD reflects the massive price-performance gap, though the GRID K2's higher price likely reflects its enterprise virtualization positioning rather than raw performance. For any user comparing these two cards, the GTX 1650 is the clear choice based on the benchmark data, with the GRID K2 only making sense in scenarios where its specific memory bandwidth characteristics are required and power consumption is not a constraint.