Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB vs GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
9060 XT 16 GB outperforms 640 Rev. 2 by a whopping 1359% 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 | 793 | 78 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 42 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.19 | 82.22 |
| Power efficiency | 5.17 | 23.10 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | RDNA 4.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | Navi 44 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 May 2013 (12 years ago) | 4 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 43174% better value for money than GT 640 Rev. 2.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 1700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 3130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 29,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.47 | 400.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8033 TFLOPS | 25.64 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 512 KB |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 32 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 2.0 x8 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-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 | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1252 MHz | 2518 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.06 GB/s | 322.3 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a |
| 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 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| 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 | 10−12
−1490%
| 159
+1490%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−1675%
| 71
+1675%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−1367%
| 44
+1367%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 8.90
−305%
| 2.19
+305%
|
| 1440p | 22.25
−353%
| 4.92
+353%
|
| 4K | 29.67
−274%
| 7.93
+274%
|
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 305% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 353% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 274% lower cost per frame in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.29 | 48.00 |
| Recency | 29 May 2013 | 4 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 49 Watt | 160 Watt |
GT 640 Rev. 2 has 227% lower power consumption.
RX 9060 XT 16 GB, on the other hand, has a 1359% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 600% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 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.
