Radeon RX 640 vs GeForce GT 640

Place in the ranking	769	616
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.20	no data
Power efficiency	3.22	7.25
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GK107	Polaris 23
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	5 June 2012 (12 years ago)	13 May 2019 (5 years 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 cores	384	640
Core clock speed	902 MHz	1082 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1218 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	28.86	48.72
Floating-point processing power	0.6927 TFLOPS	1.559 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	40

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 size	no data	large
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
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	DDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	891 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.51 GB/s	48 GB/s
Shared memory	no 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.2.131
CUDA	3.0	-

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

RX 640 5.29
+72.9%

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.

GT 640 1178

RX 640 2040
+73.2%

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

RX 640 3499
+124%

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

14−16

−92.9%

27
+92.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

7.07

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	20 +0%	20 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	27 +0%	27 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	26 +0%	26 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Metro Exodus	10 +0%	10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Hitman 3	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+0%

14−16

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Hitman 3	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10

+0%

9−10

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

This is how GT 640 and RX 640 compete in popular games:

RX 640 is 93% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 68 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.06	5.29
Recency	5 June 2012	13 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	50 Watt

RX 640 has a 72.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 640 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 Radeon RX 640 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.