AMD Radeon R7 350 vs NVIDIA GRID K2 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The NVIDIA GRID K2 takes the only direct benchmark comparison decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GRID K2 scores 10602 against the AMD Radeon R7 350's 7792, a 36.1% advantage. This is not a marginal win — it is a commanding lead that places the two cards in entirely different performance tiers. The GRID K2's OpenCL result alone accounts for its average benchmark score of 8080, while the R7 350's average sits at 7425, a gap of roughly 8.8% in aggregate performance.

The GRID K2 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 42nd percentile versus the R7 350's 40th. While both cards are firmly in the lower half of the performance distribution, the GRID K2's positioning reflects its greater compute throughput. The nearest rivals for each card underscore the separation: the GRID K2 trades blows with the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (deltaPct 0.2), GeForce 945M (deltaPct -0.2), GeForce GTX 650 Ti (deltaPct 0.3), and GeForce GTX 880M (deltaPct 0.5). The R7 350, by contrast, sits near the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (deltaPct -0.2), AMD Radeon HD 8850M (deltaPct -0.3), GeForce GTX 1650 (deltaPct -0.6), and Intel Arc A310 (deltaPct -1.7). The GRID K2 is effectively competing with older desktop and mobile GeForce parts, while the R7 350 is in the same neighborhood as integrated and entry-level discrete solutions.

The head-to-head record is 1–0 in favor of the GRID K2. There is no benchmark in the data where the R7 350 wins, and the only shared test — Geekbench OpenCL — shows a massive 36.1% gap. The R7 350 does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7057, but the GRID K2 has no Vulkan benchmark result to compare, so that data point cannot be used for a direct matchup. What the data does show is that in the one common compute workload, the GRID K2 is overwhelmingly faster.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies despite sharing the same manufacturing process. Both are built on a 28 nm node at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip under NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, while the R7 350 uses the Cape Verde chip under AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture. These are not incremental revisions — they are distinct architectural approaches to GPU computing.

The GRID K2 is a far larger and more complex chip. It packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The R7 350's Cape Verde chip is much smaller at 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, though its density of 12.2M per mm² is slightly higher. The GRID K2's sheer scale translates into dramatically more compute resources: 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, versus the R7 350's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 3x advantage in shading units, a 4x advantage in TMUs, and a 2x advantage in ROPs.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The GRID K2 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GRID K2 more than doubles the R7 350's memory bandwidth, which matters for compute workloads that stream large datasets. The memory clocks also differ: the GRID K2 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the R7 350 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective).

The architectural differences show up clearly in theoretical throughput figures. The GRID K2 delivers 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 23.84 GPixel/s pixel fill rate, and 95.36 GTexel/s texture fill rate. The R7 350 manages 819.2 GFLOPS of FP32, 12.80 GPixel/s, and 25.60 GTexel/s. In every metric, the GRID K2 is roughly 2.8x to 3.7x faster. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, and both support similar API levels — DirectX 12 (11_0 for the GRID K2, 11_1 for the R7 350), OpenGL 4.6 for both, and Vulkan 1.2.175 for the GRID K2 versus 1.2.170 for the R7 350.

Power and physical design reveal their intended roles. The GRID K2 draws 225 W, requires a dual-slot cooler, uses a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector setup, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU. It measures 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length. The R7 350 is a 55 W single-slot card with no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, and a 168 mm (6.6 inches) length. The GRID K2 has no display outputs, indicating a server or compute-oriented design, while the R7 350 includes 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for direct display connection.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 is significantly faster. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 10602 versus the R7 350's 7792, a 36.1% advantage. Its FP32 throughput of 2.289 TFLOPS also dwarfs the R7 350's 819.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Largely yes, with minor differences. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the GRID K2's DirectX 12 support is 11_0 while the R7 350's is 11_1. The GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175; the R7 350 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the R7 350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 160.0 GB/s for the GRID K2 versus 72.00 GB/s for the R7 350.

Q: Why does the GRID K2 have no display outputs?

A: The GRID K2 is designed as a compute or server card with no display outputs. The R7 350 includes 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it suitable for direct display connection.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The R7 350 is far more power-efficient. It draws 55 W with no power connectors needed, while the GRID K2 consumes 225 W and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector. The R7 350 also has a lower suggested PSU rating of 250 W versus 550 W.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall benchmark standings?

A: The GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 8080. The R7 350 is at the 40th percentile with an average score of 7425. The GRID K2's nearest rivals are GeForce GTX 650 Ti-class parts, while the R7 350 sits near integrated graphics like Intel UHD Graphics 750.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA GRID K2 | AMD Radeon R7 350 |

|-------|---------------|-------------------|

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK104 | Cape Verde |

| Generation | GRID (K2) | Pirate Islands (R7 300) |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 128 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 25.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.289 TFLOPS | 819.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Length | 267 mm (10.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2016-07-05 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,199 USD | N/A |

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for compute-centric workloads: the NVIDIA GRID K2 is the superior card. Its 36.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, 2.8x FP32 advantage, and 2.2x memory bandwidth advantage over the R7 350 are decisive. The GRID K2's 42nd percentile ranking and average benchmark score of 8080 place it in a higher performance class than the R7 350's 40th percentile and 7425 average. Every measurable compute metric favors the GRID K2, and the head-to-head record is 1–0 with no R7 350 wins.

However, the R7 350 is not without its own strengths. It is dramatically more efficient, drawing 55 W versus 225 W, requires no external power connectors, fits in a single slot, and is 99 mm shorter. It can connect directly to displays with its DVI, HDMI 1.4a, and DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the GRID K2 has none. The R7 350 also supports a slightly newer DirectX 12 feature level (11_1 versus 11_0). For a system with power constraints or a small form factor, the R7 350 is the practical choice.

The GRID K2's launch MSRP of 5,199 USD reflects its enterprise positioning — it is a compute accelerator with no display capability, not a consumer graphics card. The R7 350 has no launch MSRP in the data, but its specifications and 55 W power draw clearly target a different market segment.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GRID K2 wins on raw compute performance. The 36.1% OpenCL lead, 2.289 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, and 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for GPU-accelerated compute tasks. Its 4 GB memory capacity and 256-bit bus allow it to handle larger datasets than the R7 350's 2 GB and 128-bit bus. The GRID K2's 1,536 shading units and 128 TMUs provide 3x and 4x the resources of the R7 350, respectively, which translates directly into higher throughput in shader-heavy and texture-heavy workloads.

AMD Radeon R7 350 wins on efficiency and physical footprint. At 55 W with no power connectors, it can run in systems where a 225 W card with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors would be impossible. Its single-slot design and 168 mm length make it suitable for compact builds. The R7 350's display outputs give it a clear advantage in any scenario requiring video output, as the GRID K2 has none.

The GRID K2 wins for server or compute deployments where performance per card matters more than power draw. Its higher percentile ranking and average benchmark score indicate it will deliver better overall performance in GPU-accelerated applications. The R7 350 wins for desktop or workstation use where power efficiency, physical size, and display connectivity are priorities. The data shows a clear trade-off: the GRID K2 offers far more compute power, but the R7 350 offers far more flexibility in where and how it can be deployed.