NVS 510 vs GeForce GT 640M
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GT 640M outperforms NVS 510 by 31% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 803 | 876 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.22 | 0.14 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N13P-GS | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
| Current price | $310 | $61 (0.1x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 640M has 57% better value for money than NVS 510.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 192 |
| CUDA cores | 384 | no data |
| Core clock speed | Up to 625 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 645 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | Up to 20.0 billion/sec | 12.75 |
| Floating-point performance | 480.0 gflops | 306.0 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 640M and NVS 510 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 160 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 - 4000 MHz | 1782 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 64.0 GB/s | 28.51 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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GeForce GT 640M outperforms NVS 510 by 31% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce GT 640M outperforms NVS 510 by 31% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce GT 640M outperforms NVS 510 by 90% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
GeForce GT 640M outperforms NVS 510 by 51% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce GT 640M outperforms NVS 510 by 72% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
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 | 24
+33.3%
| 18−20
−33.3%
|
| Full HD | 22
+37.5%
| 16−18
−37.5%
|
| 1200p | 19
+35.7%
| 14−16
−35.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
This is how GT 640M and NVS 510 compete in popular games:
- GT 640M is 33.3% faster than NVS 510 in 900p
- GT 640M is 37.5% faster than NVS 510 in 1080p
- GT 640M is 35.7% faster than NVS 510 in 1200p
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 2.37 | 1.81 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 23 October 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 35 Watt |
The GeForce GT 640M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 640M is a notebook card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
