GeForce FX 5500 vs GT 640M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640M with GeForce FX 5500, including specs and performance data.

GT 640M
2012
2 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 32 Watt
2.40
+11900%

GT 640M outperforms FX 5500 by a whopping 11900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8431488
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.14no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameGK107NV34 B1
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)17 March 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$36.99

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 cores384no data
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz270 MHz
Boost clock speed645 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,270 million45 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Wattno data
Texture fill rate20.001.080
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPSno data
ROPs164
TMUs324

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 8x
Lengthno data152 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR3\GDDR5DDR
Maximum RAM amount2 GB64 MB
Memory bus width128bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz166 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 64.0 GB/s5.312 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no 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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 API9.0a
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.51.5 (2.1)
OpenCL1.1N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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. 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 640M 2.40
+11900%
FX 5500 0.02

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 640M 924
+11450%
FX 5500 8

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:

900p26-0−1
Full HD22-0−1
1200p19-0−1

Cost per frame, $

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.40 0.02
Recency 22 March 2012 17 March 2004
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 150 nm

GT 640M has a 11900% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GT 640M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5500 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 640M is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5500 is a desktop one.


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
GeForce GT 640M
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5500
GeForce FX 5500

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.


3.7 312 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 144 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5500 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.