GeForce 8800M GTX SLI vs GT 640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GT 630 OEM GT 640 GT 640 OEM GT 720 OEM GT 730 OEM GT 740 GT 1030 GK107 GTX 650
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
8200M G 8200M G mGPU AMD 8200M G mGPU Intel 8400M G 8400M GS 8400M GT 8600M GS 8600M GT 8600M GT Mac Edition 8600M GT SLI 8700M GT 8700M GT SLI 8800M GTS 8800M GTX 8800M GTX SLI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640 with GeForce 8800M GTX SLI, including specs and performance data.

GT 640
2012
2 GB DDR3, 65 Watt
2.98
+47.5%

GT 640 outperforms 8800M GTX SLI by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

GT 640 GT 640
8800M GTX SLI 8800M GTX SLI

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking780889
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Power efficiency3.221.09
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)G9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameGK107NB8E-GTX
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 June 2012 (12 years ago)19 November 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores384192
Core clock speed902 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1508 Million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate28.86no data
Floating-point processing power0.6927 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs32no data

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 3.0 x16no data
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortno data
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA3.0-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 2.98 2.02
Recency 5 June 2012 19 November 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 130 Watt

GT 640 has a 47.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 640 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800M GTX SLI in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 640 is a desktop card while GeForce 8800M GTX SLI is a notebook one.

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.

NVIDIA GeForce GT 640
GeForce GT 640
NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GT 640 GeForce GT 640
vs
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
8800M GTX SLI GeForce 8800M GTX SLI
vs
R8 M445DX Radeon R8 M445DX
GT 640 GeForce GT 640
vs
ATI HD 5750 Radeon HD 5750
GTX 660 GTX 660
vs
GTX 675M SLI 675M SLI
GTX 660 GeForce GTX 660
vs
ATI HD 4730 HD 4730
GTX 660 GeForce GTX 660
vs
6700 XL GeForce 6700 XL
GTX 660 GeForce GTX 660
vs
7800 GS 20Pipes AGP GeForce 7800 GS 20Pipes AGP
GTS 450 Rev. 3 GeForce GTS 450 Rev. 3
vs
Xbox One GPU One GPU
GT 640 GeForce GT 640
vs
HD 8530M HD 8530M
GT 640 GeForce GT 640
vs
7100 + nForce 630i GeForce 7100 + nForce 630i
GT 620 GeForce GT 620
vs
Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Lake U Xe Graphics G4
GT 630 GeForce GT 630
vs
9700M GT GeForce 9700M GT
GT 630 GeForce GT 630
vs
RX 570 X2 RX 570 X2

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.4 1614 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 3 votes

Rate GeForce 8800M GTX SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 640 or GeForce 8800M GTX SLI, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.