Radeon 780M vs GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 640M Mac Edition
2013
512 MB GDDR5, 32 Watt
1.04

780M outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 1662% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1097302
Place by popularitynot in top-10049
Power efficiency2.2383.73
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGK107Phoenix
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 February 2013 (11 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)

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 cores384768
Core clock speed745 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2700 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate23.84129.6
Floating-point processing power0.5722 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs3248
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1250 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth40 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.1
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.0-

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 HD2−3
−1700%
36
+1700%
1440p1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
4K0−113

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 39
+0%
39
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 31
+0%
31
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 54
+0%
54
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 53
+0%
53
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 46
+0%
46
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29
+0%
29
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18
+0%
18
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 32
+0%
32
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+0%
20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
+0%
17
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how GT 640M Mac Edition and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 780M is 1700% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 780M is 1900% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.04 18.32
Recency 3 February 2013 4 January 2023
Chip lithography 28 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 780M has a 1661.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 600% more advanced lithography process, and 113.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.


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 640M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
AMD Radeon 780M
Radeon 780M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.1 9 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1545 votes

Rate Radeon 780M 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.