NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 and the NVIDIA GRID K2 serve two very different purposes in the hardware landscape, despite sharing a manufacturer and process node. The GTX 960 is a consumer desktop graphics card aimed at mainstream gaming, while the GRID K2 is a datacenter-oriented virtualization appliance with no display outputs. Benchmark records show the GTX 960 holds a clear lead in every shared test, but the GRID K2 offers a larger memory pool and higher raw compute resource counts. The database shows the GTX 960 averaging 9273 points across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 45th percentile of all GPUs, while the GRID K2 averages 8080 points and sits in the 42nd percentile. These numbers indicate that for any workload where both cards can operate, the GTX 960 is the faster part, but the GRID K2 was never intended for the same use case.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960 wins in every benchmark category where both cards were tested. In the Geekbench Metal test, the GTX 960 scores 8773 against the GRID K2's 5557, a lead of 57.9 percent. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960 scores 18925 against the GRID K2's 10602, a lead of 78.5 percent. These are the only two head-to-head benchmarks available, and the GTX 960 wins both outright. The data also shows the GTX 960 has a Vulkan score of 9231 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 162, tests that the GRID K2 does not appear in at all. This means the GTX 960 is the only one of the two that can handle modern graphics APIs like Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) in a measurable way.

The GRID K2, by contrast, wins in no recorded benchmark. Its strengths lie elsewhere. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GTX 960's 2 GB on a 128 bit bus with 112.2 GB/s. For virtual desktop infrastructure or server-side rendering tasks, that extra capacity and bandwidth could matter, but the database does not contain any benchmarks that reflect those workloads. The GRID K2 also has 1536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, versus 1024 and 64 on the GTX 960, respectively. Those counts suggest the GRID K2 was built for throughput in parallel compute scenarios, but its lower clock rates and older architecture prevent it from translating that into higher benchmark scores. In every recorded test, the GTX 960 is the clear winner.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures. The GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip, built on Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ. The GTX 960 packs 2,940 million transistors into a 228 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The GRID K2 contains 3,540 million transistors on a larger 294 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. This shows the Maxwell design is more efficient in packing transistors, which contributes to its better performance per watt and per clock.

Clock speeds also differ significantly. The GTX 960 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, while the GRID K2 has no listed base or boost clocks in the database. The memory clocks are also different: the GTX 960 runs its GDDR5 at 1753 MHz with 7 Gbps effective data rate, while the GRID K2 runs at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. The GTX 960's higher memory clock helps it achieve 112.2 GB/s despite a narrower 128 bit bus, though the GRID K2's wider 256 bit bus still yields a higher total bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The GTX 960 has a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s, while the GRID K2 manages 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s. The GRID K2 textures faster due to its 128 TMUs, but the GTX 960 fills pixels faster due to its higher clocks.

Power and physical specifications diverge as well. The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W and requires only a single 6 pin power connector with a suggested 300 W power supply. The GRID K2 draws 225 W and needs both a 6 pin and an 8 pin connector, with a suggested 550 W power supply. Both are dual slot cards, but the GRID K2 is longer at 267 mm (10.5 inches) versus the GTX 960's 241 mm (9.5 inches). The GTX 960 provides display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The GRID K2 has no display outputs at all, confirming its role as a compute or virtualization card rather than a rendering device for a local monitor.

FAQ

Q: Why does the GTX 960 score so much higher in OpenCL than the GRID K2?

A: The GTX 960 scores 18925 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the GRID K2's 10602, a 78.5 percent difference. The GTX 960's higher clock speeds, at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, and its Maxwell architecture efficiency allow it to outperform the GRID K2's 1536 shading units, which run at unlisted lower clocks on the older Kepler architecture.

Q: Which card has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 960 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 112.2 GB/s bandwidth. So the GRID K2 offers double the capacity and roughly 43 percent more bandwidth.

Q: Can the GRID K2 output video to a monitor?

A: No. The database lists the GRID K2 as having no display outputs. The GTX 960, in contrast, has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 connectors.

Q: What is the GTX 960's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The GTX 960 sits in the 45th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 9273. The GRID K2 is in the 42nd percentile with an average score of 8080.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The GTX 960 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP and needs a 300 W power supply with a single 6 pin connector. The GRID K2 has a 225 W TDP and needs a 550 W power supply with both 6 pin and 8 pin connectors.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every spec category. The chip and architecture are different: GM206 with Maxwell 2.0 versus GK104 with Kepler. Transistors total 2,940 million on the GTX 960 versus 3,540 million on the GRID K2. Die size is 228 mm² for the GTX 960 and 294 mm² for the GRID K2, with transistor densities of 12.9M / mm² and 12.0M / mm² respectively. Clock speeds show the GTX 960 at 1127 MHz base and 1178 MHz boost, while the GRID K2 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for the GTX 960 versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GRID K2.

Memory configurations differ: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 112.2 GB/s for the GTX 960, versus 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus with 160.0 GB/s for the GRID K2. The GTX 960 has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GRID K2 has 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 37.70 GPixel/s for the GTX 960 and 23.84 GPixel/s for the GRID K2. Texture rates are 75.39 GTexel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is close: 2.413 TFLOPS for the GTX 960 versus 2.289 TFLOPS for the GRID K2.

Power and physical specs also separate them. TDP is 120 W for the GTX 960 and 225 W for the GRID K2. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin. Suggested PSU is 300 W versus 550 W. Length is 241 mm (9.5 inches) versus 267 mm (10.5 inches). Display outputs are present on the GTX 960 (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2) and absent on the GRID K2. API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0), Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175, while both share OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are 2015-01-21 for the GTX 960 and 2013-05-10 for the GRID K2. The GTX 960 has a launch MSRP of 199 USD, while the GRID K2 has a launch MSRP of 5,199 USD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two direct benchmark comparisons in the database are Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL. In Metal, the GTX 960 scores 8773 against the GRID K2's 5557. That is a 57.9 percent advantage for the GTX 960. In OpenCL, the GTX 960 scores 18925 against the GRID K2's 10602, a 78.5 percent advantage. These are substantial margins, and they align with the average benchmark scores: 9273 for the GTX 960 versus 8080 for the GRID K2, a difference of roughly 14.8 percent.

The GTX 960 also appears in two additional benchmarks that the GRID K2 does not have recorded: Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 9231, and 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 with a score of 162. Those results further widen the practical gap, because they show the GTX 960 can handle modern workloads while the GRID K2 has no comparable data. The GRID K2's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, which scores 8067 with a 0.2 percent delta from the GRID K2's 8080, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8053 with a 0.3 percent delta. The GTX 960's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 at 9294 with a negative 0.2 percent delta, and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 at 9221 with a 0.6 percent delta. These comparisons place the GTX 960 in a higher performance tier overall.

Examining the wins, the GTX 960 wins 2 head-to-head benchmarks and the GRID K2 wins 0. The largest win for the GTX 960 is in OpenCL, where its 78.5 percent lead nearly doubles the GRID K2's output. The smallest win is in Metal, but 57.9 percent is still a dominant margin. No benchmark in the database shows the GRID K2 ahead. The GRID K2's higher shading unit count and texture rate do not translate into benchmark victories, likely due to its lower clocks and older architecture. The data is unambiguous: in every measurable comparison, the GTX 960 is faster.

The Verdict

Choose the GTX 960 if you need a card for any workload that appears in the database. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by wide margins, has a higher average score of 9273 versus 8080, sits in a higher percentile at 45 versus 42, and supports newer APIs including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1). It also draws less power at 120 W versus 225 W, requires a smaller power supply at 300 W versus 550 W, and comes with display outputs for direct monitor connection. Its 2 GB memory is smaller, but its higher clock speeds and architecture efficiency make it the better performer in every recorded test.

Choose the GRID K2 only if your specific use case demands its unique characteristics: 4 GB of memory, 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, 1536 shading units, and 128 TMUs. The database shows it has no display outputs, so it is not a card for a desktop workstation with a monitor. It also has a much higher launch MSRP of 5,199 USD versus 199 USD for the GTX 960, though pricing is not a factor in performance analysis. The GRID K2's higher texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s and its larger memory pool may serve virtualization or server-side rendering tasks, but no benchmark data exists to confirm that. For any measurable performance metric, the GTX 960 is the superior card. The verdict from the data is simple: the GTX 960 wins on speed, efficiency, API support, and every benchmark score, while the GRID K2 wins only on memory capacity and raw resource counts that do not deliver higher performance in recorded tests.