Quadro K4000 vs GRID K2
Quadro K4000
Popular choices:
GRID K2
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Quadro K4000 is positioned at rank 283 and the GRID K2 is on rank 381, so the Quadro K4000 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K4000
Performance Per Dollar GRID K2
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GRID K2 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro K4000 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+50%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GRID K2 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GRID K2 holds the technical lead. Priced at $80 (vs $100), it costs 20% less, resulting in a 25.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+25.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅More affordable ($80) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Quadro K4000 and GRID K2
Quadro K4000
The Quadro K4000 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 810 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 80W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,719 points. Launch price was $1,269.
GRID K2
The GRID K2 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 11 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 1536 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 225W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,737 points. Launch price was $5,199.
Graphics Performance
The Quadro K4000 scores 2,719 and the GRID K2 reaches 2,737 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro K4000 is built on Kepler while the GRID K2 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 768 (Quadro K4000) vs 1,536 (GRID K2). Raw compute: 1.244 TFLOPS (Quadro K4000) vs 2.289 TFLOPS ×2 (GRID K2).
| Feature | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,719 | 2,737 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 768 | 1536 ×2+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.244 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS ×2+84% |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 ×2+33% |
| TMUs | 64 | 128 ×2+100% |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 128 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 512 KB+33% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Quadro K4000 comes with 3 GB of VRAM, while the GRID K2 has 2 GB. The Quadro K4000 offers 50% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 384 KB (Quadro K4000) vs 512 KB (GRID K2) — the GRID K2 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 3 GB+50% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 512 KB+33% |
Power & Dimensions
The Quadro K4000 draws 80W versus the GRID K2's 225W — a 95.1% difference. The Quadro K4000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro K4000) vs 350W (GRID K2). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 80W-64% | 225W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Perf/Watt | 34.0+179% | 12.2 |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K4000 launched at $1269 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the GRID K2 launched at $5199 and now averages $80. The GRID K2 costs 20% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 27.2 (Quadro K4000) vs 34.2 (GRID K2) — the GRID K2 offers 25.7% better value.
| Feature | Quadro K4000 | GRID K2 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $1269-76% | $5199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $80-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 27.2 | 34.2+26% |
| Codename | GK106 | GK104 |
| Release | March 1 2013 | May 11 2013 |
| Ranking | #613 | #611 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Quadro K4000 and GRID K2
