GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs GTX 560 Ti

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 560 Ti with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

GTX 560 Ti
2011
1 GB GDDR5, 170 Watt
7.91
+661%

GTX 560 Ti outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 661% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5171092
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.73no data
Power efficiency3.232.26
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGF114GK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date25 January 2011 (13 years ago)3 February 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249 no data

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 cores384384
Core clock speed823 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors1,950 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)170 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate52.6723.84
Floating-point processing power1.263 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs6432

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length229 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1002 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth128.3 GB/s40 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMINo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA2.13.0

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:

900p63
+688%
8−9
−688%
Full HD66
+725%
8−9
−725%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.77no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Hitman 3 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+800%
5−6
−800%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Hitman 3 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+800%
5−6
−800%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+767%
6−7
−767%
Hitman 3 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+800%
5−6
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+700%
7−8
−700%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Hitman 3 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+733%
6−7
−733%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

This is how GTX 560 Ti and GT 640M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • GTX 560 Ti is 688% faster in 900p
  • GTX 560 Ti is 725% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.91 1.04
Recency 25 January 2011 3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 170 Watt 32 Watt

GTX 560 Ti has a 660.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 431.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 560 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 560 Ti is a desktop card while GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is a notebook 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 GTX 560 Ti
GeForce GTX 560 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition

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.


3.9 812 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 560 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition 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.