Radeon RX 640 vs GMA X4500

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated614
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data7.34
ArchitectureGeneration 5.0 (2008)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameEaglelakePolaris 23
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 June 2008 (16 years ago)13 May 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores80640
Core clock speed533 MHz1082 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1218 MHz
Number of transistorsno data2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)13 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate2.13248.72
Floating-point processing powerno data1.559 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs440

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data48 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX10.012 (12_0)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 June 2008 13 May 2019
Chip lithography 65 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 13 Watt 50 Watt

GMA X4500 has 284.6% lower power consumption.

RX 640, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GMA X4500 and Radeon RX 640. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GMA X4500 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 640 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel GMA X4500
GMA X4500
AMD Radeon RX 640
Radeon RX 640

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 340 votes

Rate GMA X4500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 257 votes

Rate Radeon RX 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.