Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) vs GeForce GT 640

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640 with Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc), including specs and performance data.

GT 640
2012
2 GB DDR3, 65 Watt
3.06

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) outperforms GT 640 by a whopping 239% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking773441
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Power efficiency3.25no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Xe LPG (2023)
GPU code nameGK107Meteor Lake iGPU
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 June 2012 (12 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores3844
Core clock speed902 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1950 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Wattno data
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).

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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed891 MHzno data
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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12_2
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 640 3.06
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 10.38
+239%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 640 1560
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 5295
+239%

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 HD7−8
−257%
25
+257%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.14no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Elden Ring 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 13
+0%
13
+0%
Dota 2 15
+0%
15
+0%
Elden Ring 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 24
+0%
24
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 39
+0%
39
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 15
+0%
15
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
World of Tanks 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Fortnite 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Valorant 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
World of Tanks 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Elden Ring 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how GT 640 and Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) compete in popular games:

  • Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is 257% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.06 10.38
Recency 5 June 2012 14 December 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm

Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) has a 239.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 640 is a desktop card while Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 640
GeForce GT 640
Intel Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc)

Other comparisons

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.


3.4 1599 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 10 votes

Rate Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) 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.