RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs GeForce GT 640
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640 with RTX 6000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms GT 640 by a whopping 2348% 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 | 846 | 23 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.20 | 3.27 |
| Power efficiency | 3.31 | 17.53 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 5 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $6,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation has 1535% better value for money than GT 640.
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 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 902 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.86 | 1,423 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6927 TFLOPS | 91.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 192 |
| TMUs | 32 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 142 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 17.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 96 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 267 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 891 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.51 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| 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 DisplayPort | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| 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 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 7−8
−2543%
| 185
+2543%
|
| 1440p | 6−7
−2583%
| 161
+2583%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−2600%
| 108
+2600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 14.14
+160%
| 36.75
−160%
|
| 1440p | 16.50
+156%
| 42.23
−156%
|
| 4K | 24.75
+154%
| 62.95
−154%
|
- GT 640 has 160% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 640 has 156% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 640 has 154% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 114
+0%
|
114
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 489
+0%
|
489
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 260
+0%
|
260
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 219
+0%
|
219
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+0%
|
184
+0%
|
| Valorant | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how GT 640 and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 2543% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 2583% faster in 1440p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 2600% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 57 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.79 | 68.30 |
| Recency | 5 June 2012 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
GT 640 has 362% lower power consumption.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 2348% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 640 is a desktop graphics card while RTX 6000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
