Radeon RX 6500 XT vs GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.
6500 XT outperforms 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 2319% 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 | 1191 | 278 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 78 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 43.04 |
| Power efficiency | 2.31 | 16.74 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 February 2013 (13 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 2610 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 107 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.84 | 180.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5722 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 16 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2248 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40 GB/s | 143.9 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
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 | 2−3 | 63
+3050%
|
| 1440p | 1−2 | 31
+3000%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 17 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.16 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.42 |
| 4K | no data | 11.71 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 111 | 111 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 281 | 281 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 72 | 72 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 84 | 84 |
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 194 | 194 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 54 | 54 |
| Far Cry 5 | 102 | 102 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 48 | 48 |
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 82 | 82 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34 | 34 |
| Dota 2 | 145 | 145 |
| Far Cry 5 | 92 | 92 |
| Far Cry 6 | 15 | 15 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86 | 86 |
| Metro Exodus | 52 | 52 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 92 | 92 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30 | 30 |
| Dota 2 | 110 | 110 |
| Far Cry 5 | 86 | 86 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 54 | 54 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35 | 35 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Far Cry 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 37 | 37 |
| Metro Exodus | 18 | 18 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17 | 17 |
| Far Cry 5 | 57 | 57 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Far Cry 6 | 2 | 2 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34 | 34 |
| Metro Exodus | 11 | 11 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28 | 28 |
| Valorant | 130−140 | 130−140 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4 | 4 |
| Dota 2 | 67 | 67 |
| Far Cry 5 | 23 | 23 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27 | 24−27 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 24−27 |
This is how GT 640M Mac Edition and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6500 XT is 3050% faster in 1080p
- RX 6500 XT is 3000% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 22.98 |
| Recency | 3 February 2013 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 107 Watt |
GT 640M Mac Edition has 70% lower power consumption.
RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 2319% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 79% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 6500 XT 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.
