Radeon Vega 8 Efficient vs GeForce GT 640M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking843not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.14no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGK107Raven
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2018 (6 years 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 cores384512
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speed645 MHz1100 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0035.20
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS1.126 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3232

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 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP
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\GDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128bitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidthUp to 64.0 GB/sno data
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 outputsNo outputs
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 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.12.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 22 March 2012 23 April 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 35 Watt

GT 640M has 9.4% lower power consumption.

Vega 8 Efficient, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 640M and Radeon Vega 8 Efficient. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GT 640M is a notebook card while Radeon Vega 8 Efficient 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
AMD Radeon Vega 8 Efficient
Radeon Vega 8 Efficient

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
2.8 57 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 8 Efficient 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.