Radeon R7 M265DX vs GeForce GT 640M LE
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640M LE and Radeon R7 M265DX, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 640M LE outperforms R7 M265DX by a considerable 40% 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 | 968 | 1084 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.98 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Topaz |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 12 October 2014 (10 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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 500 MHz | 925 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 940 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 12.05 | 22.56 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.289 TFLOPS | 0.7219 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 |
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 | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 785 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 28.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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
+58.3%
| 12−14
−58.3%
|
| Full HD | 21
+50%
| 14−16
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 40.48 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| God of War | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how GT 640M LE and R7 M265DX compete in popular games:
- GT 640M LE is 58% faster in 900p
- GT 640M LE is 50% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.67 | 1.19 |
| Recency | 4 May 2012 | 12 October 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
GT 640M LE has a 40.3% higher aggregate performance score.
R7 M265DX, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 640M LE is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M265DX 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.
