GeForce GT 220 vs GT 640 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
640 Rev. 2 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 523% 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 | 802 | 1298 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.21 | 0.71 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 May 2013 (13 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GT 640 Rev. 2 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 33.47 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8033 TFLOPS | 0.1306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 64 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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1252 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.06 GB/s | 25.3 GB/s |
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 | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| 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 | 130−140
+519%
| 21
−519%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 0.68
+456%
| 3.81
−456%
|
- GT 640 Rev. 2 has 456% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how GT 640 Rev. 2 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 519% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 28 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.30 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 29 May 2013 | 12 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 58 Watt |
GT 640 Rev. 2 has a 523% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 18% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 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.
