NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct head-to-head benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and the NVIDIA GRID K2. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GRID K2 scores 10,602 points, while the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points. This gives the GRID K2 a 5.1% advantage, the only recorded win in this comparison. The Quadro M2000M does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the database.

Context from the nearest rivals section clarifies the standing of each card. The Quadro M2000M’s average benchmark score is 9,832, placing it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9,803). It also sits 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780) and 1.1% above the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724). The GRID K2’s average score is 8,080, which puts it 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 945M (8,099) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (8,067). It also leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 Ti (8,053) by 0.3% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 880M (8,040) by 0.5%.

The percentile rankings reinforce the separation between these two GPUs. The Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile. Although the GRID K2 wins the single OpenCL test, the average benchmark scores tell a different story: the Quadro M2000M is roughly 21.7% higher than the GRID K2’s average (9,832 versus 8,080). The OpenCL result appears to be an outlier in favor of the GRID K2, as its own Metal score of 5,557 is far below its OpenCL score. The Quadro M2000M’s Vulkan score of 9,606 is close to its OpenCL score of 10,057, suggesting more consistent performance across API workloads.

The Verdict

The data points in opposite directions depending on which metric is prioritized. In the single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA GRID K2 is the faster card by 5.1%. However, the average benchmark score, which aggregates recorded results, favors the Quadro M2000M by a substantial margin: 9,832 versus 8,080. The Quadro M2000M also ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile distribution, at 47 versus 42.

For users who rely on OpenCL compute workloads alone, the GRID K2’s head-to-head win is relevant. Its 10,602 OpenCL score is the highest single benchmark result recorded for either card, exceeding the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057. Yet the GRID K2’s Metal score of 5,557 indicates significant variability across different compute APIs, and its average score is dragged down accordingly. The Quadro M2000M, by contrast, shows a tighter spread between its OpenCL and Vulkan results, which suggests more predictable performance across diverse applications.

The verdict from the database is nuanced. The GRID K2 is the pick for pure OpenCL throughput, where its 5.1% lead in the head-to-head test is the decisive factor. The Quadro M2000M is the pick for general-purpose compute consistency, where its higher average benchmark score and better percentile ranking indicate broader reliability. The GRID K2’s lack of display outputs also makes it unsuitable for any workstation role requiring a monitor connection, while the Quadro M2000M’s portable device dependent outputs mean it can drive displays in supported laptops. For a mobile workstation, the Quadro M2000M is the only option with display capability. For a dedicated compute accelerator in a server, the GRID K2’s OpenCL advantage matters more.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA architectures. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip, built on the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The GRID K2 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro M2000M contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 12.6 million per mm² for the Quadro M2000M and 12.0 million per mm² for the GRID K2.

The GRID K2’s larger chip translates into a much wider execution resource pool. It has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is 2.4 times more shading units and 3.2 times more texture units on the GRID K2. Pixel rate favors the GRID K2 as well: 23.84 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 95.36 GTexel/s versus 45.48 GTexel/s, a 2.1x gap.

Compute throughput also favors the GRID K2. Its FP32 performance is 2.289 TFLOPS, while the Quadro M2000M delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan version differs: the Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175. The memory systems are built on GDDR5, but the GRID K2’s bus is twice as wide at 256 bit versus 128 bit, resulting in 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal clear contrasts beyond the architecture. The GRID K2 is a dual-slot card with a length of 267 mm (10.5 inches), and it requires a 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin power connector. The Quadro M2000M is an MXM module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The GRID K2’s suggested PSU is 550 W, and its TDP is 225 W. The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, less than a quarter of the GRID K2’s draw.

Memory capacity is equal at 4 GB, but the memory clock differs slightly: the Quadro M2000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the GRID K2 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The GRID K2’s bandwidth advantage comes entirely from its 256 bit bus. Base and boost clocks are listed only for the Quadro M2000M: 1098 MHz base and 1137 MHz boost. The GRID K2’s clocks are not recorded in the database.

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro M2000M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GRID K2 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are another major divide: the Quadro M2000M has portable device dependent outputs, while the GRID K2 has no outputs at all. The GRID K2’s launch MSRP is 5,199 USD, while the Quadro M2000M has no recorded launch MSRP. The production status for both is end-of-life.

Release dates set them apart by more than two years. The GRID K2 was released on 2013-05-10, while the Quadro M2000M arrived on 2015-12-02. The Quadro M2000M has both a predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and a successor (Quadro Pascal-M), while the GRID K2 has neither listed. The GRID K2’s generation is labeled GRID (K2), and the Quadro M2000M’s generation is Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 has an average score of 8,080.

Q: Does the GRID K2 win any benchmark against the Quadro M2000M?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GRID K2 scores 10,602 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057, a 5.1% difference in favor of the GRID K2.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W. The GRID K2 also has a suggested PSU of 550 W, while the Quadro M2000M lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, whereas the Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units.

Q: Can the GRID K2 be used with a display?

A: No, the GRID K2 has no display outputs. The Quadro M2000M has portable device dependent outputs, so it can drive displays in supported laptop configurations.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The GRID K2 offers 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth over a 256 bit bus, while the Quadro M2000M offers 80.19 GB/s over a 128 bit bus. Both use 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th percentile, while the GRID K2 sits at the 42nd percentile.