GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs 820M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 820M with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
640 Rev. 2 outperforms 820M by a whopping 187% 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 | 1127 | 801 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 5.93 | 5.21 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 96 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 128 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 40.06 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | - |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.5 |
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 | 16
−181%
| 45−50
+181%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−181%
|
90−95
+181%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−181%
|
90−95
+181%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−181%
|
45−50
+181%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−181%
|
90−95
+181%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Palworld | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−167%
|
40−45
+167%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how GeForce 820M and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 181% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 3.30 |
| Recency | 27 November 2013 | 29 May 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
GeForce 820M has an age advantage of 5 months, and 227% lower power consumption.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 187% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 820M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 820M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
