GeForce GT 640 vs GTX 1650 Mobile

Place in the ranking	302	771
Place by popularity	68	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.20
Power efficiency	25.54	3.25
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	TU117	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 April 2020 (4 years ago)	5 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1024	384
Core clock speed	1380 MHz	902 MHz
Boost clock speed	1560 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,700 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	99.84	28.86
Floating-point processing power	3.195 TFLOPS	0.6927 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	64	32

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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	GDDR6	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.140	1.1.126
CUDA	7.5	3.0

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 18.51
+505%

GT 640 3.06

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 7116
+505%

GT 640 1176

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 1650 Mobile 9313
+497%

GT 640 1560

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:

Full HD	59 +556%	9−10 −556%
1440p	36 +620%	5−6 −620%
4K	23 +667%	3−4 −667%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	11.00
1440p	no data	19.80
4K	no data	33.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	38 +533%	6−7 −533%
Cyberpunk 2077	52 +550%	8−9 −550%
Elden Ring	47 +571%	7−8 −571%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	66 +560%	10−11 −560%
Counter-Strike 2	33 +560%	5−6 −560%
Cyberpunk 2077	35 +600%	5−6 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	79 +558%	12−14 −558%
Metro Exodus	55 +511%	9−10 −511%
Red Dead Redemption 2	71 +610%	10−11 −610%
Valorant	83 +592%	12−14 −592%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	72 +620%	10−11 −620%
Counter-Strike 2	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +600%	4−5 −600%
Dota 2	72 +620%	10−11 −620%
Elden Ring	65 +550%	10−11 −550%
Far Cry 5	62 +520%	10−11 −520%
Fortnite	95−100 +519%	16−18 −519%
Forza Horizon 4	64 +540%	10−11 −540%
Grand Theft Auto V	59 +556%	9−10 −556%
Metro Exodus	40 +567%	6−7 −567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	165 +511%	27−30 −511%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +544%	9−10 −544%
Valorant	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
World of Tanks	130 +519%	21−24 −519%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +522%	9−10 −522%
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +560%	5−6 −560%
Cyberpunk 2077	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
Dota 2	89 +536%	14−16 −536%
Far Cry 5	73 +508%	12−14 −508%
Forza Horizon 4	55 +511%	9−10 −511%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	120−130 +606%	18−20 −606%
Valorant	75−80 +525%	12−14 −525%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
Elden Ring	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Grand Theft Auto V	27−30 +625%	4−5 −625%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	160−170 +519%	27−30 −519%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
World of Tanks	120−130 +606%	18−20 −606%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	37 +517%	6−7 −517%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +586%	7−8 −586%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +571%	7−8 −571%
Metro Exodus	39 +550%	6−7 −550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +525%	4−5 −525%
Valorant	45−50 +571%	7−8 −571%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Dota 2	30−35 +520%	5−6 −520%
Elden Ring	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−35 +520%	5−6 −520%
Metro Exodus	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	47 +571%	7−8 −571%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +520%	5−6 −520%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	6	0−1
Dota 2	45 +543%	7−8 −543%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Fortnite	23 +667%	3−4 −667%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +575%	4−5 −575%
Valorant	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%

This is how GTX 1650 Mobile and GT 640 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 Mobile is 556% faster in 1080p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 620% faster in 1440p
GTX 1650 Mobile is 667% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	18.51	3.06
Recency	15 April 2020	5 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	65 Watt

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 504.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 30% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GT 640 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.