ATI Radeon 9250 vs GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 and Radeon 9250, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 640 Rev. 2 outperforms ATI 9250 by a whopping 35400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 724 | 1531 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.97 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Rage 7 (2001−2006) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | RV280 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 March 2004 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 240 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 36 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 33.47 | 0.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8033 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 4 |
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 2.0 x8 | AGP 8x |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1252 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.06 GB/s | 3.2 GB/s |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 8.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.55 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 29 May 2013 | 1 March 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 150 nm |
GT 640 Rev. 2 has a 35400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9250 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
