NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains only two common benchmark tests, and the results are decisively one-sided. In Geekbench Metal, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK scores 24,172, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 5,557. This gives the TITAN BLACK a 335% advantage, a margin that dwarfs any other comparison in the database. The GRID K2 is a virtualization-focused card with no display outputs, and its compute-oriented design clearly does not target the Metal API, which is why this gap is so extreme.

The second shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows a narrower but still substantial lead for the TITAN BLACK. It scores 27,218 against the GRID K2's 10,602, a 156.7% delta. This is a more relevant comparison for general compute workloads, and while the GRID K2 is not embarrassed in the way it was under Metal, it still trails by more than a factor of 2.5. The TITAN BLACK's advantage in raw shading resources, with 2,880 shading units versus 1,536, explains much of this OpenCL gap, though the GRID K2's lower memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s versus 336.0 GB/s also factors into memory-heavy kernels.

Looking at the broader database averages, the TITAN BLACK posts an average benchmark score of 9,474, placing it at the 46th percentile of all GPUs. The GRID K2 averages 8,080, at the 42nd percentile. The overall average score difference is 17.2% in favor of the TITAN BLACK, but the head-to-head tests show far larger swings because those tests target APIs where the two cards are not equally optimized.

The nearest rivals for the TITAN BLACK in the database are tightly clustered. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 averages 9,458, only 0.2% behind the TITAN BLACK. The AMD Radeon R7 M380 sits 1.7% behind, and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is 1.7% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is 1.8% ahead. This tells a clear story: the TITAN BLACK's average score is essentially indistinguishable from a midrange GeForce GPU in the database's aggregate metrics, despite its far higher compute ceiling in specific APIs.

The GRID K2's nearest rivals are similarly close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost scores 8,067, just 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce 945M is 0.2% ahead, the GTX 650 Ti is 0.3% behind, and the GTX 880M is 0.5% ahead. The GRID K2's aggregate performance therefore sits in the same performance class as these older mobile and desktop parts, which is notable for a card designed around virtualized GPU instances.

The Verdict

The data supports only one conclusion for raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK is the stronger card in every measured test. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, holds a higher average score (9,474 versus 8,080), and ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution (46th versus 42nd). The TITAN BLACK's 335% lead in Metal and 156.7% lead in OpenCL are not close calls; they are categorical wins.

However, the GRID K2 is not a card built for the same purpose. It has no display outputs, which means it cannot drive a monitor directly. Its architecture targets virtualized graphics for cloud or data-center deployments. If the workload involves GPU passthrough to virtual machines, the GRID K2's feature set aligns with that use case in ways the TITAN BLACK does not. The database does not include virtualization-specific benchmarks, so this remains a qualitative distinction, but the lack of display outputs is a hard fact that cannot be ignored.

For anyone selecting between these two for a conventional desktop, workstation, or direct-rendering workload, the TITAN BLACK is the correct choice on every recorded metric. Its higher FP32 throughput of 5.645 TFLOPS versus 2.289 TFLOPS, its 6 GB memory versus 4 GB, and its wider 384-bit bus versus 256-bit all point the same direction. For a server environment where the GPU is partitioned and shared, the GRID K2's design intent is different, but the database cannot quantify that advantage because no such tests are recorded.

Architecture Differences

Both cards are built on the Kepler architecture and manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but they diverge significantly in chip design. The TITAN BLACK uses the GK110B chip, which contains 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The TITAN BLACK's die is nearly double the size and holds exactly twice the transistor count.

The execution resources differ accordingly. The TITAN BLACK has 2,880 shading units, 240 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units. The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. These are exactly half, half, and two-thirds of the TITAN BLACK's counts, respectively. The pixel rate tells the story: 58.80 GPixel/s for the TITAN BLACK versus 23.84 GPixel/s for the GRID K2. Texture rate is 235.2 GTexel/s versus 95.36 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.645 TFLOPS versus 2.289 TFLOPS. In every computational throughput metric, the TITAN BLACK holds at least a 2.4x lead.

Memory subsystems also differ sharply. The TITAN BLACK carries 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, with memory clocks at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s. The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, with memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The TITAN BLACK delivers more than double the memory bandwidth, which matters for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Clock behavior differs as well. The TITAN BLACK has defined base and boost clocks of 889 MHz and 980 MHz, respectively. The GRID K2 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock. This suggests the GRID K2's clocks are configured by the host or vary by virtual GPU profile, but the database records no fixed values.

Both cards share the same bus interface, PCIe 3.0 x16, and both are dual-slot with identical 267 mm (10.5 inches) length. Power connectors are the same: one 6-pin and one 8-pin. The TITAN BLACK has a 250 W TDP and a suggested 600 W PSU, while the GRID K2 has a 225 W TDP and a suggested 550 W PSU. Display outputs differ completely: the TITAN BLACK provides 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GRID K2 has no outputs at all.

API support is nearly identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.175. The TITAN BLACK supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The DirectX feature level difference is minor but real, reflecting the newer feature set of the GK110B chip.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK scores 24,172, which is 335% higher than the GRID K2's 5,557. This is the largest recorded delta in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the GRID K2 have any benchmark wins over the TITAN BLACK?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the GRID K2 across the two head-to-head tests. The TITAN BLACK wins both Geekbench Metal and Geekbench OpenCL.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The TITAN BLACK provides 336.0 GB/s of bandwidth from its 384-bit bus, while the GRID K2 provides 160.0 GB/s from its 256-bit bus. The TITAN BLACK's bandwidth is more than double the GRID K2's.

Q: Can the GRID K2 connect to a display directly?

A: No. The GRID K2 has no display outputs. The TITAN BLACK offers 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The TITAN BLACK averages 9,474 across all recorded benchmarks, ranking in the 46th percentile of all GPUs. The GRID K2 averages 8,080, ranking in the 42nd percentile.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference in TFLOPS?

A: The TITAN BLACK reaches 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 compute, while the GRID K2 reaches 2.289 TFLOPS FP32. The TITAN BLACK is roughly 2.5x higher in this metric.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN BLACK wins in every scenario that involves direct rendering, compute, or any workload measured in the database. Its 5.645 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 336.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 6 GB frame buffer make it the clear choice for graphics rendering, general GPU compute, and any application that uses the Metal or OpenCL APIs as recorded here. Its 48 ROPs and 235.2 GTexel/s texture rate also position it well for rasterization-heavy tasks, though the database does not include a direct gaming benchmark suite beyond the PassMark entries, where the TITAN BLACK scores 9,184 in G3D and 3,726 in GPU compute. The TITAN BLACK also offers display outputs, enabling direct visual output without any additional hardware.

The GRID K2 wins in one specific qualitative domain: virtualization. Its lack of display outputs and its GRID generation designation indicate a card intended for hosted or shared GPU environments. In such deployments, raw per-instance performance is less important than the ability to partition the GPU across multiple virtual machines. The database does not include benchmarks that measure multi-user virtualization throughput, so this advantage cannot be quantified here. But the design choices, the GK104 chip with half the shading units (1,536 versus 2,880), lower TDP of 225 W versus 250 W, and no display hardware, all point toward a power-conscious, server-oriented design.

For an individual workstation or a desktop build, the GRID K2 is functionally unsuitable because it cannot output video. The TITAN BLACK is the only one of the two that can serve as a primary GPU. For a data-center GPU pool, the GRID K2's architecture is the intended fit, though prospective buyers should note its average score of 8,080 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost and GTX 880M in aggregate performance, not near the TITAN BLACK's class.

In summary, the TITAN BLACK is the superior card on every measured metric, and the GRID K2's only advantage lies in its virtualization-oriented feature set, which the database cannot objectively score. Buyers should match the card to the workload: TITAN BLACK for direct compute and display, GRID K2 for virtualized server deployments where its design constraints are actually a requirement.