GeForce 410M vs GT 640 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 with GeForce 410M, including specs and performance data.
GT 640 Rev. 2 outperforms 410M by a whopping 421% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 731 | 1187 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.03 | 3.94 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.47 | 4.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8033 TFLOPS | 0.1104 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
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 | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | Up to 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1252 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.06 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | + |
| 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 | 40−45
+400%
| 8
−400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.23 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GT 640 Rev. 2 and GeForce 410M compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 400% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 34 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.49 | 0.67 |
| Recency | 29 May 2013 | 5 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 12 Watt |
GT 640 Rev. 2 has a 420.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 410M, on the other hand, has 308.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is a desktop card while GeForce 410M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
