Arc A310 vs GeForce GT 640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640 and Arc A310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 640
2012, $99
2 GB DDR3, 65 Watt
2.79

A310 outperforms GT 640 by a whopping 370% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking857432
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Power efficiency3.3233.78
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Xe-HPG (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 June 2012 (14 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores384768
Core clock speed902 MHz1750 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1750 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate28.8656.00
Floating-point processing power0.6927 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1616
TMUs3232
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data6
L1 Cache32 KB1.1 MB
L2 Cache256 KB4 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s124.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.4
CUDA3.0-
DLSS-+

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.

GT 640 2.79
Arc A310 13.10
+370%

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.

GT 640 1162
Samples: 5055
Arc A310 5459
+370%
Samples: 68

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 640 1560
Arc A310 8464
+443%

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 HD7−8
−429%
37
+429%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.14no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 154
+0%
154
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 38
+0%
38
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 42
+0%
42
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 106
+0%
106
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Palworld 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+0%
33
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 47
+0%
47
+0%
Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 28
+0%
28
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 23
+0%
23
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Valorant 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Palworld 21
+0%
21
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Palworld 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Palworld 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Palworld 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how GT 640 and Arc A310 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A310 is 429% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.79 13.10
Recency 5 June 2012 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 30 Watt

Arc A310 has a 370% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 367% more advanced lithography process, and 117% lower power consumption.

The Arc A310 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 1842 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 315 votes

Rate Arc A310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 640 or Arc A310, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.