NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and NVIDIA GRID K2 are both Kepler-generation professional cards built around the same GK104 chip, but they target fundamentally different workloads. Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Quadro K5000 is the clear winner in raw compute performance, taking both head-to-head benchmark wins. The GRID K2, however, is not designed for direct rendering; it has no display outputs, which makes it unsuitable for traditional workstation use.

The Quadro K5000 is the pick for anyone needing a professional GPU with display connectivity, as it delivers a 13.8% lead over the GRID K2 in Geekbench Metal and a 7.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. It also carries a higher average benchmark score of 9637 compared to 8080 for the GRID K2, placing it at the 46th percentile versus the 42nd percentile among all GPUs. The GRID K2, with its dual-slot design and 225 W TDP, is oriented toward virtualized environments where display output is handled remotely, not locally.

For users comparing against the wider market, the Quadro K5000 sits within 0.1% to 0.8% of rivals like the GeForce GTX 960M, Radeon Pro WX 2100, Quadro P4000, and Tesla C2070, meaning its average score is statistically neck-and-neck with those cards. The GRID K2, meanwhile, trades blows with the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (0.2% ahead), GeForce 945M (0.2% behind), GeForce GTX 650 Ti (0.3% ahead), and GeForce GTX 880M (0.5% ahead).

The verdict is straightforward: if you need a physical workstation card with DVI and DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro K5000 is the only choice of the two. If you are building a virtualized GPU infrastructure where users never touch the hardware directly, the GRID K2 has no display outputs by design, but its benchmark scores are meaningfully lower in every recorded test.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro K5000 wins every recorded benchmark category. In Geekbench Metal, it scores 6324 against 5557 for the GRID K2, a 13.8% advantage. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 11418 against 10602, a 7.7% advantage. There is no recorded test where the GRID K2 comes out ahead.

The GRID K2 does have some theoretical advantages in different dimensions, though these do not translate into benchmark wins. It has a higher pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s versus 22.59 GPixel/s for the Quadro K5000, and a higher texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s versus 90.37 GTexel/s. Its FP32 throughput is also slightly higher at 2.289 TFLOPS versus 2.169 TFLOPS. These figures suggest the GRID K2 could have a marginal edge in pure rasterization throughput, but the recorded Geekbench results show the Quadro K5000 pulling ahead in both API tests.

The GRID K2 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K5000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, which could matter in bandwidth-sensitive virtualized workloads. However, the benchmark data does not isolate PCIe effects, so this remains a specification-level distinction rather than a measured performance win. Power consumption is another differentiator: the GRID K2 draws 225 W and requires both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, while the Quadro K5000 draws 122 W and needs only a single 6-pin connector. The GRID K2 also suggests a 550 W power supply versus 300 W for the Quadro K5000.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: they use the GK104 chip, built on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. Transistor density is identical at 12.0M per mm². Both have 1536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those features did not exist in the Kepler generation.

Memory configurations are also similar. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro K5000 runs its memory at 1350 MHz with 5.4 Gbps effective speed, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The GRID K2 runs memory at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, yielding 160.0 GB/s. That is a 12.8 GB/s difference in favor of the Quadro K5000, a modest but measurable gap.

Clock speeds differ, though the GRID K2's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database. The Quadro K5000 runs at a fixed 706 MHz for both base and boost. The GRID K2's pixel rate of 23.84 GPixel/s and texture rate of 95.36 GTexel/s imply a higher clock, since it has the same 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs, but the exact frequency is not listed. The GRID K2's FP32 figure of 2.289 TFLOPS also exceeds the Quadro K5000's 2.169 TFLOPS, again confirming a higher effective clock despite the missing explicit value.

Power and physical design diverge sharply. The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W, a dual-slot cooler, and a single 6-pin power connector. The GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W, also a dual-slot cooler but with both a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector. The suggested PSU rating jumps from 300 W for the Quadro K5000 to 550 W for the GRID K2.

Display outputs are the most telling architectural difference. The Quadro K5000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a standard workstation card. The GRID K2 has no display outputs at all, confirming its role as a virtualization accelerator where frames are encoded and streamed rather than sent to a physical monitor. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, so API coverage is identical.

The physical dimensions are the same length at 267 mm (10.5 inches). The Quadro K5000 has a recorded height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GRID K2's height is not listed. Release timing differs: the Quadro K5000 launched on August 16, 2012, and the GRID K2 launched on May 10, 2013. The Quadro K5000 has a predecessor in Quadro Fermi and a successor in Quadro Maxwell, while the GRID K2 has neither recorded. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 6324 in Geekbench Metal, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 5557. That is a 13.8% advantage for the Quadro K5000.

Q: Does the GRID K2 have any display outputs?

A: No. The GRID K2 is listed with no display outputs, while the Quadro K5000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The GRID K2 is designed for virtualized environments, not direct monitor connection.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the GRID K2 has 160.0 GB/s. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, but the Quadro K5000 runs at 5.4 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective for the GRID K2.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector with a suggested 300 W PSU. The GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W, requires a 6-pin and an 8-pin connector, and suggests a 550 W PSU.

Q: Are these cards the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the GK104 chip on TSMC's 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors. They share the same 1536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9637, placing it at the 46th percentile among all GPUs. The GRID K2 has an average score of 8080, placing it at the 42nd percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data contains two tests, and the Quadro K5000 wins both. The first is Geekbench Metal, where the Quadro K5000 posts 6324 against 5557 for the GRID K2. The 13.8% delta is the largest margin in either test. This is notable because Metal is a low-level graphics API, and a nearly 14% advantage suggests the Quadro K5000 has a meaningful edge in graphics-oriented compute tasks, not just a marginal one.

The second test is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K5000 scores 11418 and the GRID K2 scores 10602. The 7.7% delta is smaller but still comfortably in favor of the Quadro K5000. OpenCL is a general-purpose compute API, and this result indicates the Quadro K5000 also handles compute workloads better, despite the GRID K2 having a higher theoretical FP32 rating of 2.289 TFLOPS versus 2.169 TFLOPS.

Interestingly, the GRID K2's higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput do not translate into a win in either benchmark. This suggests that the GRID K2's clocks, while higher in throughput terms, are offset by other factors, possibly memory bandwidth. The Quadro K5000's 172.8 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s could explain part of the gap, as memory bandwidth often constrains compute workloads more than raw shader throughput.

Looking at the broader rival context, the Quadro K5000's average score of 9637 places it just 0.1% behind the GeForce GTX 960M, 0.2% behind the Radeon Pro WX 2100, 0.3% behind the Quadro P4000, and 0.8% behind the Tesla C2070. These are all sub-1% deltas, meaning the Quadro K5000 performs essentially on par with that cluster of GPUs. The GRID K2's average of 8080 places it 0.2% ahead of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost, 0.2% behind the GeForce 945M, 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 650 Ti, and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 880M. Again, all sub-1% deltas, but at a lower absolute performance tier.

The wins tally is 2 for the Quadro K5000 and 0 for the GRID K2. No benchmark in the database reverses that outcome. For users deciding between these two end-of-life cards, the data is unambiguous: the Quadro K5000 is the faster card in every recorded test, and it also offers the display outputs and lower power draw that make it usable as a conventional workstation GPU. The GRID K2's only niche is virtualized GPU deployments, where its lack of display outputs and higher power envelope are acceptable trade-offs for its intended server role.