Arc A580 vs GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 and Arc A580, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
A580 outperforms 640 Rev. 2 by a whopping 775% 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 | 805 | 226 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.23 | 12.82 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 10 October 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
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 | 384 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 175 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.47 | 384.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8033 TFLOPS | 12.29 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 8 MB |
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 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1252 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.06 GB/s | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0 |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 10−12
−930%
| 103
+930%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−833%
| 56
+833%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−1000%
| 33
+1000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.90 | no data |
| 1440p | 14.83 | no data |
| 4K | 29.67 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 149
+0%
|
149
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 331
+0%
|
331
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 131
+0%
|
131
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 110
+0%
|
110
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 263
+0%
|
263
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 102
+0%
|
102
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174
+0%
|
174
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 57
+0%
|
57
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how GT 640 Rev. 2 and Arc A580 compete in popular games:
- Arc A580 is 930% faster in 1080p
- Arc A580 is 833% faster in 1440p
- Arc A580 is 1000% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.31 | 28.97 |
| Recency | 29 May 2013 | 10 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 175 Watt |
GT 640 Rev. 2 has 257% lower power consumption.
Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 775% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 367% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
