NVIDIA GRID K2 vs NVIDIA Tesla M10 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two cards cleanly by workload type. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 leads in graphics-oriented compute paths, specifically Vulkan, where its Maxwell architecture demonstrates stronger API efficiency. The NVIDIA GRID K2, by contrast, wins the single shared OpenCL test, showing an advantage in raw compute throughput that favors general-purpose GPU workloads.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the Tesla M10 posts a composite of 9,724 across its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), placing it at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GRID K2 averages 8,080 across its two tests (Metal and OpenCL), sitting at the 42nd percentile. The M10's higher percentile reflects its consistency: both of its scores cluster tightly around 9,100 to 10,300, whereas the GRID K2's Metal score of 5,557 drags its average down substantially despite a strong OpenCL showing.

The M10's advantage is most pronounced in the Vulkan test, where it scores 9,130. This result indicates that the Maxwell architecture handles modern graphics APIs with notably better efficiency than the older Kepler design. The GRID K2 has no Vulkan result recorded, so direct comparison in that API is not possible, but the M10's Vulkan score alone exceeds the GRID K2's average by more than 1,000 points.

Conversely, the GRID K2 wins the OpenCL contest with 10,602 against the M10's 10,318, a 2.7% margin. This is the only head-to-head test where both cards have matching results, and it establishes the GRID K2 as the stronger choice for OpenCL-centric workloads such as scientific simulation or data-parallel processing.

For users prioritizing raw compute in legacy APIs, the GRID K2 delivers. For those needing modern graphics API performance, particularly Vulkan, the Tesla M10 is the superior option. The database further shows the M10's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 1070 (delta of -0.6%) and Quadro P4000 (delta of 0.6%), placing it in solid mid-range company. The GRID K2's nearest rivals are far weaker, with the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (delta of 0.2%) and GeForce 945M (delta of -0.2%), indicating its average performance sits in a much lower tier.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations despite sharing the same manufacturing process. The Tesla M10 uses the GM107 chip built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, while the GRID K2 uses the GK104 chip from the older Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: the M10 packs 1,870 million transistors across a 148 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The GRID K2 contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The GRID K2's die is nearly double the size and carries almost twice the transistor count.

The GRID K2's Kepler design emphasizes parallel throughput. It features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units. The Tesla M10's Maxwell design is more modest on paper: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite the lower counts, the M10's Maxwell architecture achieves better per-clock efficiency, which explains its competitive average benchmark score.

Clock speeds tell a similar story of generational differences. The M10 runs at a base clock of 1033 MHz with a boost up to 1306 MHz. The GRID K2 has no base or boost clocks recorded in the database, a notable omission that suggests its clocks were either fixed or not publicly specified. Memory clocks differ too: the M10 uses 1300 MHz memory (5.2 Gbps effective), while the GRID K2 runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration is another major split. The M10 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 83.20 GB/s of bandwidth. The GRID K2 provides 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GRID K2's wider bus gives it nearly double the memory bandwidth, which likely contributes to its OpenCL victory despite the M10's larger frame buffer capacity.

Both cards share identical dimensions at 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, dual-slot designs, and a 225 W TDP. The power connector setup differs: the M10 requires a single 8-pin connector, while the GRID K2 needs a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector. Both recommend a 550 W power supply. Neither card has display outputs, as both are compute-focused accelerator products.

API support shows the M10's newer architecture. The M10 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GRID K2 also lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only Vulkan 1.2.175, a significantly older revision. This explains the M10's Vulkan advantage and suggests better long-term compatibility with modern graphics software.

Release timing reinforces the generational gap. The GRID K2 launched in May 2013 with a launch MSRP of 5,199 USD, while the Tesla M10 arrived in May 2016. The M10's predecessor is listed as Tesla Kepler, which includes the GRID K2's architecture, and its successor is Tesla Pascal. The GRID K2 has no predecessor or successor recorded, marking it as a standalone product in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GRID K2 wins decisively. The GRID K2 scores 10,602 against the Tesla M10's 10,318, a delta of -2.7% from the M10's perspective. This 284-point gap is meaningful in compute terms, representing roughly a 3% performance advantage for the Kepler card in OpenCL workloads.

The OpenCL result aligns with the GRID K2's hardware specifications. Its 256-bit memory bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth provide substantially more memory throughput than the M10's 128-bit bus at 83.20 GB/s. The GRID K2 also has more than double the shading units (1,536 vs. 640) and four times the TMUs (128 vs. 40), giving it a raw compute ceiling that the M10 cannot match in this API. The GRID K2's FP32 rating of 2.289 TFLOPS exceeds the M10's 1.672 TFLOPS by roughly 37%, a gap that OpenCL benchmarks appear to capture accurately.

However, the M10's OpenCL score is still respectable. At 10,318, it sits within 3% of the GRID K2's result, despite the large hardware differences. This points to the Maxwell architecture's superior instruction efficiency and clock scaling. The M10's boost clock of 1306 MHz versus the GRID K2's unspecified clocks (likely lower given the larger die) helps close the throughput gap.

In the Vulkan test, the M10 posts 9,130, a score that would likely defeat the GRID K2 if that card had a recorded Vulkan result. The M10's Vulkan API support at version 1.4, compared to the GRID K2's 1.2.175, gives it access to newer features and better driver optimization paths. The M10's average benchmark score of 9,724 reflects this stronger graphics-side performance, while the GRID K2's average of 8,080 is dragged down by its Metal score of 5,557.

The GRID K2's Metal result is particularly weak, more than 2,500 points below its OpenCL score. This suggests the Kepler architecture has poor optimization for Apple's Metal API, which matters for macOS-based compute environments. The M10 has no Metal score recorded, so cross-platform comparisons in that API remain inconclusive.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Tesla M10 averages 9,724 across its two recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GRID K2 averages 8,080. The M10 also ranks higher at the 47th percentile of all GPUs versus the GRID K2's 42nd percentile.

Q: In the only shared benchmark, which card wins and by how much?

A: The GRID K2 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10,602 against the M10's 10,318, a margin of 2.7% in favor of the Kepler card.

Q: How do their memory configurations differ?

A: The Tesla M10 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 83.20 GB/s bandwidth. The GRID K2 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, giving it nearly double the memory throughput.

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences?

A: The M10's GM107 chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die (12.6M per mm²). The GRID K2's GK104 chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die (12.0M per mm²), roughly double the silicon area.

Q: Why does the Tesla M10 have better Vulkan support?

A: The M10 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GRID K2 supports only Vulkan 1.2.175. The M10's Maxwell architecture is newer and its driver stack supports a more recent API revision.

Q: Do both cards have the same power requirements?

A: Both have a 225 W TDP and recommend a 550 W power supply. The M10 uses a single 8-pin power connector, while the GRID K2 requires a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload. For OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA GRID K2 is the stronger choice. Its 2.7% lead in the shared OpenCL benchmark, combined with 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 2.289 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, makes it the superior raw compute engine. The GRID K2's 4 GB frame buffer is smaller, but the wider 256-bit bus compensates with higher throughput, which OpenCL workloads typically reward. Its nearest rivals in the database, such as the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost (delta of 0.2%) and GeForce GTX 880M (delta of 0.5%), confirm that its performance level is competitive within its generation.

For modern graphics API workloads, particularly Vulkan, the NVIDIA Tesla M10 is the only viable choice between the two. The M10's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the GRID K2's Vulkan 1.2.175, combined with its 9,130 Vulkan score, demonstrates a clear architectural advantage. The M10's 8 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for large datasets or multi-application virtualization scenarios. Its average score of 9,724 places it alongside the GeForce GTX 1070 (delta of -0.6%) and Quadro P4000 (delta of 0.6%), indicating solid mid-range performance.

The GRID K2's Metal score of 5,557 is a liability for any Apple-centric deployment. The M10 has no Metal result recorded, so users in that ecosystem should treat the GRID K2 with caution. The M10's lack of a Metal score also means its macOS performance is unverified.

Power consumption is identical at 225 W TDP, and both cards require a 550 W power supply. The GRID K2's dual power connectors (6-pin plus 8-pin) may be less convenient in some systems, but the electrical load is the same. Physical dimensions match at 267 mm length and dual-slot width, so chassis compatibility is equivalent.

Neither card offers display outputs, confirming their accelerator-only roles. The GRID K2's 2013 launch with a 5,199 USD MSRP positions it as a high-cost enterprise product of its era, while the M10's 2016 release benefits from three additional years of architectural refinement. The M10's Maxwell design achieves 1.672 TFLOPS with fewer than half the shading units of the GRID K2, underscoring the efficiency gains of the newer architecture.

The final recommendation depends on the target API. OpenCL-centric deployments favor the GRID K2 by a small but measurable margin. Vulkan-centric deployments have only one option: the Tesla M10. For mixed workloads where both APIs matter, the M10's higher average score and percentile ranking make it the safer default, but the GRID K2's OpenCL superiority is a genuine, data-backed advantage that should not be dismissed.