NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The NVIDIA GRID K2 and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M are both Kepler-generation parts built on the GK104 chip, yet they are engineered for radically different environments. The GRID K2 is a dual-slot, 225 W server-oriented accelerator with no display outputs, while the K4100M is a 100 W mobile workstation GPU on an MXM module. Benchmark results show a split decision: the K4100M leads in Geekbench Metal, while the GRID K2 dominates Geekbench OpenCL. This head-to-head analysis quantifies those differences and places them in the context of their respective nearest rivals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their two shared benchmark tests, with each taking one decisive victory. In Geekbench Metal, the Quadro K4100M scores 6662, which is 16.6% higher than the GRID K2’s 5557. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the mobile part has a significant advantage in this particular API workload. The GRID K2’s Metal score of 5557 places it well behind not only its rival here but also its own OpenCL result, suggesting the architecture’s compute resources are not optimally utilized in this test.

The tables turn completely in Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the GRID K2 scores 10602, which is 15.9% ahead of the K4100M’s 9149. This 1,453-point gap is the largest single-test difference between the two cards. The GRID K2’s OpenCL score is its stronger result by a wide margin, and it comfortably exceeds the K4100M’s best effort. The data shows a clear pattern: the GRID K2 excels in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, while the K4100M holds the edge in the Metal test.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the GRID K2 posts an average of 8080 across its two tests, while the K4100M averages 7906. That gives the GRID K2 a 2.2% lead in aggregate performance. In the context of their nearest rivals, the GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile of all GPUs, with its average score of 8080 landing just 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8067) and 0.5% above the GeForce GTX 880M (8040). The K4100M, at the 41st percentile, averages 7906, which is 0.2% below the GeForce GTX 460 (7925) and 1.8% below the GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8053). The average scores are close, but the individual test results reveal that each card has a distinct strength.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental GK104 chip, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The transistor density is identical at 12.0M per mm². However, the two cards configure this silicon very differently. The GRID K2 activates 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the K4100M uses 1152 shading units and 96 TMUs, keeping the same 32 ROPs. This means the GRID K2 has 33.3% more shading units and 33.3% more TMUs than the K4100M, which directly explains its higher theoretical fill rates and compute throughput.

Clock speeds further widen the gap. The GRID K2 runs its memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the K4100M’s memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The GRID K2’s memory clock is 56.3% higher, and combined with the identical 256-bit bus width, this yields a memory bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s versus the K4100M’s 102.4 GB/s. The GRID K2’s bandwidth advantage is 56.3%, which is critical for compute workloads that are memory-bound. The K4100M does list a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the GRID K2’s core clocks are not specified in the data, so the clock comparison is limited to memory.

The power and physical design differences are stark. The GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W, a dual-slot form factor, and requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The K4100M is an MXM-B (3.0) module with a TDP of 100 W and no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The GRID K2 is 267 mm (10.5 inches) long, while the K4100M has no listed dimensions, reflecting its mobile module form factor. The GRID K2 has no display outputs, whereas the K4100M’s outputs are dependent on the host portable device.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 has a higher average benchmark score of 8080, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M’s 7906. This gives the GRID K2 a 2.2% lead in aggregate performance across the two shared tests.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench Metal?

A: The Quadro K4100M wins Geekbench Metal with a score of 6662, which is 16.6% higher than the GRID K2’s 5557. This is the K4100M’s strongest test result.

Q: What is the margin in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GRID K2 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 10602, beating the K4100M’s 9149 by 15.9%. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the GRID K2’s memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the K4100M’s 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). Consequently, the GRID K2 has 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the K4100M has 102.4 GB/s.

Q: What are the shading unit counts for each card?

A: The GRID K2 has 1536 shading units and 128 TMUs, while the K4100M has 1152 shading units and 96 TMUs. Both have 32 ROPs.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the NVIDIA GRID K2 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M are listed as end-of-life products. The K4100M was released on 2013-07-22, and its predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M with the Quadro Maxwell-M as its successor.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two NVIDIA GPUs differ, based on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GRID K2 | NVIDIA Quadro K4100M |

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

| Generation | GRID (K2) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1152 |

| TMUs | 128 | 96 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 16.94 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 67.78 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.289 TFLOPS | 1.627 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 225 W | 100 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 267 mm (10.5 inches) long | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | Not specified | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Not specified | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Launch MSRP | 5,199 USD | 1,499 USD |

| Geekbench Metal Score | 5557 | 6662 |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 10602 | 9149 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 42 | 41 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 8080 | 7906 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GRID K2 is the clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 10602 is 15.9% higher than the K4100M’s, and its theoretical specs support this. With 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, 2.289 TFLOPS FP32 performance, and 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, the GRID K2 is built for raw throughput. Its pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s and texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s are also 40.7% and 40.7% higher, respectively, than the K4100M’s figures. This makes the GRID K2 the better choice for server-side compute, rendering, or any task that leverages OpenCL and benefits from higher bandwidth and more execution resources. Its 225 W TDP and dual-slot design with power connectors indicate a stationary, high-performance installation.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in Geekbench Metal with a score of 6662, which is 16.6% ahead of the GRID K2. This is its sole benchmark victory, but it is a meaningful one for applications that favor the Metal API. The K4100M achieves this despite having fewer shading units (1152) and lower memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s), suggesting that its 706 MHz core clock and mobile-optimized design deliver efficiency in this specific workload. Its 100 W TDP, MXM-B form factor, and lack of power connectors make it suitable for portable workstations, where the GRID K2 physically cannot fit. The K4100M also has a lower launch MSRP of 1,499 USD compared to the GRID K2’s 5,199 USD, although pricing analysis is outside the scope of this data.

In practical terms, the choice depends on the environment and the API in use. For a fixed installation prioritizing OpenCL compute and maximum memory bandwidth, the GRID K2 is the superior part. For a mobile workstation where Metal performance matters and power consumption is a constraint, the K4100M holds the advantage. The data shows a split decision: one win each, with the GRID K2’s overall average score slightly higher, but the K4100M posting a stronger single-test result in Metal.