GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs GTX 660M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 660M with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
660M outperforms 640 Rev. 2 by a small 5% 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 | 779 | 791 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 5.35 | 5.18 |
| 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 | 835 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) | 50 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.0 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.
| 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 | 30
+11.1%
| 27−30
−11.1%
|
| Full HD | 35
+16.7%
| 30−35
−16.7%
|
| 1200p | 38
+8.6%
| 35−40
−8.6%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.97 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+13.3%
|
45−50
−13.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 89
+11.3%
|
80−85
−11.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+13.3%
|
45−50
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+10%
|
30−33
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+13.3%
|
45−50
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GTX 660M and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GTX 660M is 11% faster in 900p
- GTX 660M is 17% faster in 1080p
- GTX 660M is 9% faster in 1200p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.48 | 3.30 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 29 May 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 49 Watt |
GTX 660M has a 5.5% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 2% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 660M and GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 660M 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.
