GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs GT 650M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 650M with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
640 Rev. 2 outperforms 650M by a moderate 16% 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 | 828 | 786 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 4.83 | 5.16 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 900 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.40 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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\GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 80.0 GB/s | 40.06 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| 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 support
List of supported 3D 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 | + | 3.5 |
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 | 31
−12.9%
| 35−40
+12.9%
|
| Full HD | 32
−9.4%
| 35−40
+9.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 72
−11.1%
|
80−85
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−7.1%
|
30−33
+7.1%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−8.7%
|
50−55
+8.7%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−14.3%
|
24−27
+14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GT 650M and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 13% faster in 900p
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 9% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.82 | 3.28 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 29 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 49 Watt |
GT 650M has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 8.9% lower power consumption.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 16.3% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 650M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 650M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
