GRID K2 vs Radeon Pro 555
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 555 with GRID K2, including specs and performance data.
Pro 555 outperforms K2 by a moderate 15% 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 | 579 | 617 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.06 |
| Power efficiency | 7.71 | 2.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 11 May 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $5,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1536 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 95.36 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.306 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 ×2 |
| TMUs | 48 | 128 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 1275 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.6 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 32
+18.5%
| 27−30
−18.5%
|
| 4K | 13
+30%
| 10−12
−30%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 192.56 |
| 4K | no data | 519.90 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+17.1%
|
70−75
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+29.2%
|
24−27
−29.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+23.1%
|
65−70
−23.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+21%
|
100−105
−21%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+33.3%
|
18−20
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+20.8%
|
24−27
−20.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+20.8%
|
24−27
−20.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+16.7%
|
18−20
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+23.1%
|
65−70
−23.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+22.2%
|
27−30
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 57
+26.7%
|
45−50
−26.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+22.2%
|
18−20
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+23.1%
|
65−70
−23.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 23
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+16%
|
50−55
−16%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+21.4%
|
70−75
−21.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+30%
|
30−33
−30%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
This is how Pro 555 and GRID K2 compete in popular games:
- Pro 555 is 19% faster in 1080p
- Pro 555 is 30% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.51 | 6.54 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 11 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 225 Watt |
Pro 555 has a 14.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
GRID K2, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon Pro 555 is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile workstation 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.
