NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 and NVIDIA GRID K2 are both end-of-life products from NVIDIA, but they serve vastly different purposes. The GTX 980 is a consumer gaming card built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the GRID K2 is a datacenter-oriented virtualization card based on the older Kepler architecture. The benchmark data shows a clear performance chasm, with the GTX 980 dominating both shared test workloads. However, the GRID K2’s intended role in server environments means raw consumer benchmark scores do not tell the whole story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is limited to two tests, and in both, the GeForce GTX 980 delivers a crushing victory. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 980 scores 15,163 points against the GRID K2’s 5,557 points. That translates to a delta of 172.9%, meaning the GTX 980 is nearly three times faster in this compute-heavy API test. The gap widens even further in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 980 posts 34,676 points versus the GRID K2’s 10,602 points. The delta here is 227.1%, so the GTX 980 more than triples the GRID K2’s output in this workload.

These two wins give the GTX 980 a perfect 2-0 record in the head-to-head set. The margins are not close; they are lopsided. The GTX 980’s average benchmark score across all tests is 8,167, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all GPUs. The GRID K2’s average score is 8,080, which puts it in the 42nd percentile. Despite the enormous per-test deltas, the overall average scores are surprisingly close—only a 1.1% difference. This is because the GRID K2’s limited benchmark data (only two tests) skews its average, while the GTX 980’s score is pulled down by low-performing DirectX legacy tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (164) and Passmark DirectX 10 (53).

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces the picture. The GTX 980’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, which scores 8,135 on average—a mere 0.4% behind. The GRID K2’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, with an average score of 8,067, just 0.2% behind. This suggests that in raw compute terms, the GRID K2 is roughly comparable to a mid-range laptop GPU from a few generations later, while the GTX 980 sits in a similar bracket but with far more benchmark coverage.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 980 wins in every shared benchmark, so its strengths are obvious. It excels in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its Geekbench OpenCL score of 34,676, which is over three times the GRID K2’s 10,602. The GTX 980 also leads in graphics throughput, with a pixel rate of 77.82 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 155.6 GTexel/s. These figures dwarf the GRID K2’s 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s, respectively. For any task that involves rendering, shading, or general-purpose GPU compute, the GTX 980 is the clear choice.

The GRID K2 does not win any head-to-head benchmarks, but its purpose is different. It has no display outputs, which means it is not designed for direct rendering to a monitor. Instead, it is built for virtualized environments where multiple users share GPU resources. Its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit memory bus match the GTX 980, but its memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s is lower. The GRID K2’s 225 W TDP is higher than the GTX 980’s 165 W, and it requires a 550 W power supply versus the GTX 980’s 450 W recommendation. This suggests the GRID K2 trades efficiency for server-specific features, though the data does not list those features explicitly.

In terms of API support, the GTX 980 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the GTX 980 is better suited for modern games and applications that leverage newer rendering features. The GRID K2, with its older Kepler architecture, is more limited in this regard. However, for virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) workloads, the GRID K2’s lack of display outputs is not a disadvantage—it is a design choice for server deployment.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The GTX 980 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, while the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip based on the older Kepler architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the GTX 980 packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The GRID K2 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0M per mm². This means the GTX 980 has roughly 47% more transistors and a 35% larger die, which contributes to its higher performance.

Core configuration differences are stark. The GTX 980 has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 64 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, but only 32 ROPs. The GTX 980’s doubling of ROPs helps explain its much higher pixel rate of 77.82 GPixel/s versus 23.84 GPixel/s. The GTX 980 also has a higher texture rate at 155.6 GTexel/s, although the GRID K2’s 95.36 GTexel/s is respectable given its lower core count.

Clock speeds are another differentiator, though the GRID K2 has no listed base or boost clocks. The GTX 980 runs at a base clock of 1127 MHz and boosts to 1216 MHz. Memory clocks differ as well: the GTX 980 runs its GDDR5 at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GRID K2 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This contributes to the GTX 980’s higher memory bandwidth of 224.4 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s. Compute performance is also lopsided: the GTX 980 delivers 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GRID K2 manages only 2.289 TFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics also diverge. The GTX 980 has a TDP of 165 W and uses two 6-pin power connectors, while the GRID K2 has a 225 W TDP and uses one 6-pin plus one 8-pin connector. Both are dual-slot cards with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), but the GTX 980 has defined height and width dimensions (111 mm and 40 mm), while the GRID K2’s are not listed. The GTX 980 offers display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2; the GRID K2 has no outputs at all.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 980 is the superior performer in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 172.9% and 227.1%, and its architectural advantages in shading units, ROPs, clocks, and bandwidth are overwhelming. For anyone needing a GPU for gaming, content creation, or general compute, the GTX 980 is the only choice here. Its 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 make it a capable card for its era, despite being end-of-life.

The GRID K2, however, should not be dismissed as a failure. Its lack of display outputs and higher power draw indicate a specialized role in server racks, not desktop workstations. The fact that it still matches the GTX 980’s average benchmark score (8,080 vs 8,167) in its limited test set suggests it holds its own in specific server-side compute tasks. Its Kepler architecture may be older, but its 4 GB of GDDR5 memory and 256-bit bus are respectable for virtualization workloads.

The practical recommendation depends on the use case. If the task is client-side rendering, gaming, or any workload that requires a display output, the GTX 980 is the clear winner. If the task is server-side GPU virtualization where multiple users share resources and no direct display is needed, the GRID K2 is designed for that scenario. The data does not include virtualized performance metrics, so a direct comparison in that domain is not possible. What the data does show is that in pure compute benchmarks, the GTX 980 is vastly superior.

The GTX 980’s launch MSRP is 549 USD, while the GRID K2’s is 5,199 USD. This price difference reflects their positioning: consumer versus enterprise. The GTX 980 offers far more performance per dollar in the tests available, but the GRID K2’s enterprise features are not captured in these consumer benchmarks. For a buyer who only cares about raw performance, the GTX 980 is the answer. For a datacenter architect, the GRID K2’s specific capabilities may justify its existence, even if its benchmark scores are lower.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 has an average benchmark score of 8,167, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 8,080. This is a difference of 1.1% in favor of the GTX 980.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 980 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 980 scores 34,676 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the GRID K2’s 10,602. This represents a 227.1% advantage for the GTX 980.

Q: What are the memory bandwidths of these two cards?

A: The GTX 980 has a memory bandwidth of 224.4 GB/s, while the GRID K2 has 160.0 GB/s. Both cards have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: Does the GRID K2 have any display outputs?

A: No, the GRID K2 has no display outputs. The GTX 980, by contrast, offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has a higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The GTX 980 delivers 4.981 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GRID K2 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS. The GTX 980 is more than twice as powerful in this metric.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these GPUs?

A: The GTX 980 has a TDP of 165 W and requires a 450 W power supply. The GRID K2 has a higher TDP of 225 W and requires a 550 W power supply.