NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11,045 points, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 10,602 points. This gives the GTX 960M a 4.2% victory, a modest but clear margin.

Looking at the aggregate data, the GTX 960M has an average benchmark score of 9,645 across all recorded tests, while the GRID K2 averages 8,080. That is a 19.4% gap in favor of the mobile GPU, though it should be noted that the two cards are tested in different workloads, with the GRID K2 also having a Metal score of 5,557 in the database.

The GTX 960M sits at the 46th percentile among all GPUs in the database, placing it slightly above the midpoint of the performance distribution. Its nearest rivals in average score are the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9,637 (0.1% behind), the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 at 9,665 (0.2% ahead), and the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 at 9,716 (0.7% ahead). These are tight margins, indicating the GTX 960M sits in a crowded performance band.

The GRID K2, by contrast, sits at the 42nd percentile, four points below the GTX 960M. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost at 8,067 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M at 8,099 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti at 8,053 (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M at 8,040 (0.5% behind). The GRID K2's average score is therefore close to a cluster of older and lower-end parts, whereas the GTX 960M competes with workstation and professional cards.

The head-to-head OpenCL result is the only direct comparison, and it shows the GTX 960M winning by 4.2%. That is not a dominant margin, but it is consistent across the average scores, where the GTX 960M leads by a wider percentage. The data suggests that in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, the GTX 960M holds a real advantage, though the GRID K2 has substantially more shading units and memory bandwidth on paper.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has an average benchmark score of 9,645, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 has an average score of 8,080. The GTX 960M leads by approximately 19.4% in this metric.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 960M scores 11,045 points, and the GRID K2 scores 10,602 points. The GTX 960M wins by 4.2% in this specific test.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The GTX 960M is at the 46th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GRID K2 is at the 42nd percentile. This places the GTX 960M slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, while the GTX 960M has 640 shading units. The GRID K2 has more than double the shading unit count.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory. The GTX 960M uses a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the GRID K2 uses a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher pixel and texture rates?

A: The GRID K2 has a pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s. The GTX 960M has a pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s. The GRID K2 leads in both metrics.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general-purpose compute workloads. The GTX 960M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark by 4.2%, and its average score across all tests is 19.4% higher than the GRID K2's average. The GTX 960M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 46 versus 42.

However, the verdict is not one-sided. The GRID K2 has significantly more raw hardware resources: 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and a 256-bit memory bus delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and a 128-bit bus at 80.19 GB/s. Despite this hardware disadvantage, the GTX 960M still scores higher in the recorded benchmarks, which suggests that architectural efficiency and clock behavior compensate for the fewer resources.

For a user choosing between these two, the GTX 960M is the better pick for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, as measured by the database. The GRID K2, with its dual-slot form factor, no display outputs, and higher power draw at 225 W, is clearly designed for server-side virtualization rather than client-side rendering. The GTX 960M, as an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs, is built for mobile workstations and gaming laptops. The data does not show any benchmark where the GRID K2 wins, so the GTX 960M is the recommended choice based on recorded performance.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Transistor density is close, at 12.6M per mm² for the GTX 960M and 12.0M per mm² for the GRID K2.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The GTX 960M has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz. The GRID K2 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database. Memory clocks are nearly identical: 1253 MHz for the GTX 960M and 1250 MHz for the GRID K2, both yielding 5 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration differs. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5, but the GTX 960M uses a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the GRID K2 uses a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GRID K2 has exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Compute resources differ sharply. The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The pixel rate is 23.84 GPixel/s for the GRID K2 versus 18.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 960M. The texture rate is 95.36 GTexel/s versus 47.04 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 2.289 TFLOPS for the GRID K2 and 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960M.

Power and physical specifications diverge. The GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface with no power connectors. The GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W, uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, and lists a suggested PSU of 550 W. The GRID K2 is a dual-slot card measuring 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while the GTX 960M is an MXM module with no recorded dimensions. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the GTX 960M, while the GRID K2 has no outputs.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 960M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, while the GRID K2 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the process node is identical. The transistor counts differ substantially: 1,870 million for the GTX 960M versus 3,540 million for the GRID K2. The die size also differs, with the GTX 960M at 148 mm² and the GRID K2 at 294 mm².

The architectural generation differs as well. The GTX 960M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, with a release date of March 12, 2015. The GRID K2 belongs to the GRID (K2) generation and was released earlier, on May 10, 2013. The GTX 960M has a predecessor in the GeForce 800M and a successor in the GeForce 10 Mobile. The GRID K2 has no recorded predecessor or successor.

API support differs slightly. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

Cache specifications are not recorded in the database, but the core configuration differences are clear. The GRID K2 has more than double the shading units, three times the TMUs, and double the ROPs of the GTX 960M. The GRID K2 also has double the memory bus width and double the memory bandwidth. Despite this, the GTX 960M achieves higher benchmark scores, which indicates that the Maxwell architecture in the GTX 960M is more efficient per unit of hardware than the older Kepler architecture in the GRID K2.

The GRID K2's lack of display outputs and its server-oriented design, combined with a higher TDP and dual-slot form factor, point to a different intended use case. The GTX 960M, with its mobile MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs, is designed for laptops. The architectural differences reflect these different design goals, with the GRID K2 prioritizing raw throughput for virtualized workloads and the GTX 960M prioritizing efficiency within a mobile power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960M wins in the only direct benchmark comparison recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 4.2%. It also wins on average benchmark score by a wider margin, 9,645 versus 8,080. The GTX 960M is the better choice for any application that relies on OpenCL compute performance as measured by the database. Its lower TDP of 75 W makes it suitable for mobile platforms where power draw is a constraint. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is also a point in its favor for newer applications that use Vulkan.

The GRID K2 wins on raw hardware specifications. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, double the memory bandwidth, and higher pixel and texture rates. Its FP32 throughput of 2.289 TFLOPS is significantly higher than the GTX 960M's 1.505 TFLOPS. The GRID K2 also has a higher pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s and a higher texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s. For workloads that are heavily bound by memory bandwidth or texture throughput, the GRID K2's hardware advantages could be relevant, though the database does not record any benchmark where it wins.

The GRID K2's design as a server-side virtualization card, with no display outputs and a dual-slot form factor, makes it appropriate for datacenter deployments. Its 4 GB memory and 256-bit bus could handle large framebuffers for virtualized desktops. The GTX 960M, conversely, is the pick for mobile workstations or gaming laptops where the MXM form factor and lower power draw are essential.

In summary, the GTX 960M wins on measured performance, the GRID K2 wins on paper specifications. The data shows that in the recorded benchmarks, the GTX 960M is the superior performer, despite the GRID K2's larger hardware resource pool. Users should pick the GTX 960M for compute performance and the GRID K2 only if they specifically need a server-oriented card with no display outputs and are willing to accept lower benchmark scores.