NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Quadro P5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA GRID K2 and NVIDIA Quadro P5000 represent two distinct generations of professional GPU design. While both are end-of-life products from NVIDIA, the data shows they are nearly inseparable in average benchmark scores, yet fundamentally different in architecture and capability. The GRID K2, based on the older Kepler architecture, and the Quadro P5000, based on Pascal, offer contrasting profiles that cater to different workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between the two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisively one-sided. The Quadro P5000 delivers a score of 52,509, while the GRID K2 manages 10,602. This represents a delta of -79.8% for the GRID K2, meaning the Quadro P5000 is roughly five times faster in this specific compute test. This is a massive generational leap. The Quadro P5000’s raw compute advantage is not a marginal improvement; it is a categorical shift in processing power.

The overall average benchmark scores, however, tell a different story. The GRID K2 has an average benchmark score of 8,080, while the Quadro P5000 sits at 8,039. This puts the GRID K2 a hair ahead by 0.5% according to its nearest rival list, which explicitly lists the Quadro P5000 with a deltaPct of -0.5. The Quadro P5000’s own nearest rival list confirms this, showing the GRID K2 as a rival with a deltaPct of -0.5 as well. This near-identical average score is surprising given the OpenCL disparity. It suggests that the average benchmark score is heavily weighted by older or different tests where the GRID K2’s architecture performs relatively better, or that the passmark scores for the Quadro P5000 drag its average down.

Indeed, the Quadro P5000’s benchmark results are a mixed bag. While it excels in Geekbench OpenCL (52,509) and shows a strong Passmark G3D score of 12,634, it also has low scores in specific legacy tests. For instance, its Passmark DirectX 10 score is 77, and its Passmark DirectX 12 score is 44. These low scores in specific APIs pull its overall average down significantly, bringing it in line with the GRID K2, which only has the two Geekbench results (OpenCL 10,602 and Metal 5,557) contributing to its average of 8,080. The data indicates that the average score is a blunt instrument; the OpenCL test reveals the true performance gap in modern compute workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on different manufacturing processes and architectures. The GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. In contrast, the Quadro P5000 uses the GP104 chip, built on a more advanced 16 nm process, also at TSMC, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die. This process shrink allows for a significantly higher transistor density: 22.9 million transistors per mm² for the Quadro P5000 versus 12.0 million per mm² for the GRID K2.

The core configurations differ substantially. The GRID K2 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro P5000, by contrast, boasts 2,560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. This higher count of execution units directly contributes to its superior fill rates. The Quadro P5000 achieves a pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s, dwarfing the GRID K2’s 23.84 GPixel/s and 95.36 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance follows the same pattern, with the Quadro P5000 delivering 8.873 TFLOPS versus the GRID K2’s 2.289 TFLOPS.

Memory is another major point of divergence. The GRID K2 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P5000 offers 16 GB of GDDR5X memory on the same 256-bit bus, but with a much higher bandwidth of 288.5 GB/s. While the GRID K2’s memory clock is listed as 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), the Quadro P5000’s is 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective). The higher effective speed of the GDDR5X memory is what enables the bandwidth advantage. The Quadro P5000 also has base and boost clocks of 1607 MHz and 1733 MHz, respectively, while the GRID K2 has no listed base or boost clocks in the data.

Feature support also differs. The GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan support differs: the GRID K2 supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the Quadro P5000 supports Vulkan 1.4. The Quadro P5000 also has display outputs (1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the GRID K2 has no display outputs, indicating its purpose as a server-side compute or virtualization card. The power profiles are also distinct, with the GRID K2 having a 225 W TDP and requiring both a 6-pin and an 8-pin power connector, while the Quadro P5000 has a lower 180 W TDP and needs only a single 8-pin connector.

Where Each One Wins

The GRID K2’s only benchmark win is in the average score category, and even that is marginal. Its 8,080 average is 0.5% higher than the Quadro P5000’s 8,039. This is not a meaningful performance victory in any real-world sense; it is a statistical artifact of the benchmark suite. The GRID K2’s higher score is likely due to its absence of low-scoring legacy tests. It has no DirectX Passmark results, which are the tests that drag down the Quadro P5000’s average.

The Quadro P5000 wins decisively in the only head-to-head compute test and in every raw specification category. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 52,509 is 79.8% higher than the GRID K2’s 10,602. In terms of raw compute, memory bandwidth, and fill rates, the Quadro P5000 is the clear victor. Its 8.873 TFLOPS FP32 performance is nearly four times the GRID K2’s 2.289 TFLOPS. Its 288.5 GB/s memory bandwidth is 80% higher. Its 110.9 GPixel/s pixel rate is over four times higher. For any modern compute, rendering, or simulation workload that can utilize these resources, the Quadro P5000 is the superior choice.

The GRID K2’s niche, based on the data, appears to be legacy or specific virtualization workloads where its lack of display outputs is a feature, not a bug. However, the performance data shows it is severely outclassed in compute. The Quadro P5000’s wins are in every meaningful performance metric in the fact pack.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GRID K2 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 8,080, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P5000’s 8,039. The delta is 0.5% in favor of the GRID K2.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro P5000 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro P5000 scores 52,509 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 79.8% higher than the GRID K2’s score of 10,602.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro P5000 has 16 GB of GDDR5X memory with a 256-bit bus and 288.5 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P5000 has 7,200 million transistors, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 has 3,540 million transistors.

Q: Do these cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GRID K2 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Quadro P5000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The GRID K2 has a TDP of 225 W, while the Quadro P5000 has a lower TDP of 180 W.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the NVIDIA Quadro P5000 is the superior product for nearly all use cases. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a massive margin (79.8% in Geekbench OpenCL). It offers over four times the FP32 compute power (8.873 TFLOPS vs 2.289 TFLOPS), significantly higher fill rates, and nearly double the memory bandwidth (288.5 GB/s vs 160.0 GB/s). It also has four times the memory capacity (16 GB vs 4 GB), which is critical for large datasets and modern workloads. The Quadro P5000’s lower TDP of 180 W compared to 225 W for the GRID K2 makes it more power-efficient as well.

The GRID K2’s only claim to a win is its 0.5% higher average benchmark score, which is negligible and likely a result of the limited benchmark data available for it. This does not compensate for its severe performance deficits in compute and memory. The GRID K2’s lack of display outputs makes it unsuitable for workstation use. The Quadro P5000, with its display outputs and superior performance, is the clear choice for any professional application that requires rendering, compute, or simulation. The data suggests that the Quadro P5000 is a generationally more capable card, and the GRID K2 should only be considered in scenarios where its specific legacy virtualization features are required and its performance limitations are acceptable.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specifications where the two GPUs differ, based solely on the provided data.

| Specification | NVIDIA GRID K2 | NVIDIA Quadro P5000 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | Kepler | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.0M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 1607 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1733 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 16 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |

| Memory Clock | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1127 MHz (9 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 288.5 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 2560 |

| TMUs | 128 | 160 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.84 GPixel/s | 110.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 95.36 GTexel/s | 277.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.289 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 225 W | 180 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 550 W | 450 W |

| Display Outputs | No outputs | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-10 | 2016-09-30 |

| Launch MSRP | 5,199 USD | 2,499 USD |