GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB vs GT 640M LE
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640M LE and GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB outperforms GT 640M LE by a whopping 583% 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 | 967 | 441 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.98 | 11.58 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | GP107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 February 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $849.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | Up to 384 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 500 MHz | 1366 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1442 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 3,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.05 | 69.22 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.289 TFLOPS | 2.215 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 24 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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\DDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 785 MHz | 1752 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 28.8 GB/s | 84.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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:
| 900p | 19
−532%
| 120−130
+532%
|
| Full HD | 21
−567%
| 140−150
+567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 40.48 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−567%
|
240−250
+567%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−567%
|
240−250
+567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−550%
|
130−140
+550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−567%
|
240−250
+567%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−550%
|
130−140
+550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−567%
|
60−65
+567%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−567%
|
240−250
+567%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−567%
|
40−45
+567%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−582%
|
75−80
+582%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−547%
|
110−120
+547%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−550%
|
65−70
+550%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−567%
|
100−105
+567%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−525%
|
50−55
+525%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
This is how GT 640M LE and GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is 532% faster in 900p
- GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is 567% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.67 | 11.40 |
| Recency | 4 May 2012 | 1 February 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 75 Watt |
GT 640M LE has 275% lower power consumption.
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB, on the other hand, has a 582.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE 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.
