GeForce GT 640 OEM vs GTX 560 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti and GeForce GT 640 OEM, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 560 Ti outperforms GT 640 OEM by a whopping 368% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 532 | 946 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.59 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.18 | 2.31 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 24 April 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 823 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 52.67 | 25.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.263 TFLOPS | 0.6121 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 229 mm | 145 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1002 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 128.3 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 3.0 |
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 | 63
+425%
| 12−14
−425%
|
| Full HD | 65
+442%
| 12−14
−442%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+392%
|
24−27
−392%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+371%
|
7−8
−371%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+425%
|
16−18
−425%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
This is how GTX 560 Ti and GT 640 OEM compete in popular games:
- GTX 560 Ti is 425% faster in 900p
- GTX 560 Ti is 442% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.84 | 1.46 |
| Recency | 25 January 2011 | 24 April 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 560 Ti has a 368.5% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 640 OEM, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 240% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 OEM in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
