GRID K2 vs GeForce GTX 280
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280 with GRID K2, including specs and performance data.
K2 outperforms GTX 280 by a whopping 112% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 818 | 623 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.11 | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 1.02 | 2.26 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 11 May 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $5,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 280 has 83% better value for money than GRID K2.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 240 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 602 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 236 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 48.16 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6221 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 80 | 128 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 267 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1107 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 141.7 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | HDTVDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.175 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.10 | 6.57 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 11 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 236 Watt | 225 Watt |
GRID K2 has a 112% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132% more advanced lithography process, and 5% lower power consumption.
The GRID K2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 280 is a desktop graphics card while GRID K2 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
