NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data in this comparison points to a clear but narrow outcome. The NVIDIA GRID K2 wins the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a margin of 45.5% over the NVIDIA Quadro 5000. Its average benchmark score of 8080 places it at the 42nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 5000’s average of 7289 lands at the 40th percentile. The GRID K2 also holds a 0.2% edge over its nearest rival, the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, and trails the GeForce 945M by only 0.2%. The Quadro 5000, by contrast, sits 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 750 and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile.

For compute-heavy workloads, the GRID K2 is the stronger pick. Its shading unit count is more than four times higher, its texture rate is over four times higher, and its FP32 throughput is more than triple that of the Quadro 5000. The GRID K2’s 2.289 TFLOPS against the Quadro 5000’s 722.3 GFLOPS is a decisive gap. However, the Quadro 5000 is not without merit. It is the only one of the two with display outputs, making it suitable for direct visual output tasks, and its lower power draw of 152 W versus 225 W suggests it is easier to integrate into systems with modest power budgets.

The GRID K2 is also a longer card at 267 mm versus 248 mm, but both are dual-slot designs. The GRID K2 demands a 550 W suggested PSU and both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, whereas the Quadro 5000 needs only a 450 W PSU and a single 6-pin connector. For users with existing power infrastructure, the Quadro 5000 is the simpler install.

The release timeline also matters. The GRID K2 came out on 2013-05-10, while the Quadro 5000 debuted on 2011-02-22. The newer architecture, Kepler, gives the GRID K2 a process node advantage at 28 nm versus 40 nm, and a transistor density of 12.0M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm², even though the die is smaller at 294 mm² versus 529 mm².

In short, the GRID K2 is the compute specialist, the Quadro 5000 is the display-oriented workstation card, and the benchmark data favors the former in raw throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 has an average benchmark score of 8080, which is higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 5000’s 7289.

Q: How much faster is the GRID K2 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GRID K2 scores 10602 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 5000 scores 7289, resulting in a 45.5% delta in favor of the GRID K2.

Q: Can either card output video to a display?

A: Only the Quadro 5000 has display outputs, offering 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The GRID K2 has no outputs at all.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The Quadro 5000 draws 152 W, while the GRID K2 draws 225 W. The Quadro 5000 also requires a 450 W suggested PSU versus the GRID K2’s 550 W.

Q: What is the transistor density of each card?

A: The GRID K2 has a transistor density of 12.0M per mm², while the Quadro 5000 has 5.9M per mm².

Architecture Differences

The two cards belong to different NVIDIA architectures. The GRID K2 uses the Kepler architecture on the GK104 chip, while the Quadro 5000 uses the Fermi architecture on the GF100 chip. This fundamental split drives most of the performance and feature differences.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The GRID K2 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro 5000 uses a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller process allows the GRID K2 to pack 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro 5000 has 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, giving it a density of only 5.9M per mm². The larger die and older process explain why the Quadro 5000 has lower density despite a similar transistor count.

The GRID K2 also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro 5000 has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, so the API gap is limited to Vulkan.

The memory clock differs as well. The GRID K2 runs its GDDR5 at 1250 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective, while the Quadro 5000 runs at 750 MHz, translating to 3 Gbps effective. This higher memory clock contributes to the GRID K2’s bandwidth advantage.

The GRID K2 has no display outputs, reflecting its server-oriented design. The Quadro 5000 includes 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, making it a traditional workstation card. The bus interface also differs: the GRID K2 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro 5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The GRID K2 and Quadro 5000 diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The GRID K2 has 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 raster output units. The GRID K2 has more shading and texture hardware, but the Quadro 5000 has more ROPs.

Memory capacity and bandwidth also differ. The GRID K2 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 offers 2.5 GB of GDDR5 with a 320-bit bus and 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GRID K2 has more capacity and bandwidth, while the Quadro 5000 has a wider bus.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the hardware counts. The GRID K2 achieves 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s. The Quadro 5000 achieves 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.289 TFLOPS for the GRID K2 and 722.3 GFLOPS for the Quadro 5000.

Power requirements differ considerably. The GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W, requires a 550 W suggested PSU, and uses 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connectors. The Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W, requires a 450 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 6-pin connector. Both are dual-slot cards, but the GRID K2 is longer at 267 mm versus 248 mm. The Quadro 5000 also lists a height of 111 mm, while the GRID K2 does not list a height.

The launch MSRP for the GRID K2 was 5,199 USD, while the Quadro 5000 launched at 2,499 USD. Both are end-of-life products. The GRID K2 was released on 2013-05-10, and the Quadro 5000 on 2011-02-22.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The GRID K2 scores 10602, and the Quadro 5000 scores 7289. The GRID K2 wins by a delta of 45.5%. This is a substantial margin, reflecting the GRID K2’s advantage in shading units, texture units, memory bandwidth, and clock speed.

The GRID K2 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 5557, which the Quadro 5000 does not have recorded. This additional benchmark further supports the GRID K2’s compute superiority, though no direct comparison is possible since the Quadro 5000 lacks a Metal score.

In terms of percentile ranking, the GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th. The GRID K2’s average benchmark score of 8080 is 791 points higher than the Quadro 5000’s 7289. That gap translates to a 10.8% advantage in average score, though the head-to-head delta is larger because it compares the specific OpenCL test.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize the results. The GRID K2’s closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost at a 0.2% delta, meaning the GRID K2 is effectively tied with that card. The Quadro 5000’s closest rival is the GeForce GTX 750 at a 0.9% delta, meaning the Quadro 5000 is slightly ahead. These rival comparisons show that the GRID K2 is near the top of its performance tier, while the Quadro 5000 is slightly above its own tier.

Where Each One Wins

The GRID K2 wins in raw compute performance. Its FP32 throughput of 2.289 TFLOPS is more than three times the Quadro 5000’s 722.3 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s is over four times higher. Its pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s is more than double. Its memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s is 33% higher. For applications that rely on parallel processing, such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, the GRID K2 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The GRID K2 also wins in memory capacity, with 4 GB versus 2.5 GB. This larger frame buffer or working set can accommodate larger datasets or textures. The GRID K2’s higher memory clock of 1250 MHz versus 750 MHz contributes to its bandwidth advantage.

The Quadro 5000 wins in power efficiency, drawing 152 W versus 225 W. It also requires a less demanding power supply, a 450 W unit versus 550 W, and only a single 6-pin connector. For systems with limited power delivery, the Quadro 5000 is the more practical option.

The Quadro 5000 wins in display connectivity, as it is the only card with outputs. Its 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort allow direct monitor connection, which the GRID K2 cannot do. This makes the Quadro 5000 suitable for tasks requiring visual output, such as CAD workstations or digital content creation, where the user needs to see the rendered result.

The Quadro 5000 also has a smaller physical footprint, with a length of 248 mm versus 267 mm, and a recorded height of 111 mm. The GRID K2 does not list a height, but its longer length could be a constraint in compact chassis.

The release timing favors the GRID K2, which came out over two years later. The newer Kepler architecture and 28 nm process give it a technological edge, while the Quadro 5000’s Fermi architecture and 40 nm process are older. The Quadro 5000’s predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler, indicating a clear generational path, while the GRID K2 has no listed predecessor or successor in the database.

In summary, the GRID K2 is the compute champion, winning the only head-to-head benchmark and dominating in shading, texturing, and memory bandwidth. The Quadro 5000 is the display-oriented option, winning on power draw, connectivity, and physical size. Users with compute-heavy workloads should favor the GRID K2, while those needing direct display output or tighter power constraints should consider the Quadro 5000.