To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.
GT 640M LE vs GTS 160M
Price now
230$
Games supported
57%
- Interface PCIe 2.0 x16
- Core clock speed 600
- Max video memory 1 GB
- Memory type GDDR3
- Memory clock speed Up to 800MHz
- Maximum resolution
- Interface PCIe 2.0 x16
- Core clock speed Up to 500 MHz
- Max video memory 2048 MB
- Memory type DDR3\DDR5
- Memory clock speed 1800 - 4000
- Maximum resolution
Price now
310$
Games supported
57%
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 811 | 812 |
| Value for money | 0.10 | 0.08 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Fermi / Kepler (2012) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GS1 | N13P-LP |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (13 years old) | 22 March 2012 (10 years old) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $849.99 |
| Current price | $230 | $310 (0.4x MSRP) |
Value for money
Technical specs
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 | 64 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 64 | Up to 384 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | Up to 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 60 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 19 billion/sec | Up to 16.0 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 192 gflops | 384.0 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 288 | no data |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on GeForce GTS 160M and GeForce GT 640M LE compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | DDR3\DDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 MHz | 1800 - 4000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51 GB/s | Up to 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | VGADisplayPortDual Link DVIHDMILVDSSingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | Up to 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
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 | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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.
- Passmark
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
Passmark
This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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%
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
GeForce GT 640M LE outperforms GeForce GTS 160M by 46% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
Mining hashrates
Cryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTS 160M and GeForce GT 640M LE. Usually measured in megahashes per second.
| Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | no data | 14 Mh/s |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | no data | 19 |
| Full HD | no data | 21 |
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 22 March 2012 |
| Memory bus width | 256 | 128 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 64 | 384 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 60 Watt | 20 Watt |
Technical City couldn't decide between
and
The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Competitors of GeForce GTS 160M by AMD
The nearest GeForce GTS 160M's AMD equivalent is Radeon HD 8730M, which is faster by 1% and higher by 2 positions in our performance rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GTS 160M:
Competitors of GeForce GT 640M LE by AMD
The nearest GeForce GT 640M LE's AMD equivalent is Radeon HD 8730M, which is faster by 1% and higher by 3 positions in our performance rating.
Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce GT 640M LE:
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
