GeForce GT 640 vs GTX 680
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680 and GeForce GT 640, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 680 outperforms GT 640 by a whopping 372% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 361 | 769 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.03 | 0.20 |
| Power efficiency | 5.08 | 3.23 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 5 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 680 has 1415% better value for money than GT 640.
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 | 1536 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1006 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1058 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 135.4 | 28.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.25 TFLOPS | 0.6927 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 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).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2048 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256-bit GDDR5 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.2 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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API 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 | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 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.
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
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 | 45
+400%
| 9−10
−400%
|
| Full HD | 74
+429%
| 14−16
−429%
|
| 4K | 23
+475%
| 4−5
−475%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.74 | 7.07 |
| 4K | 21.70 | 24.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+375%
|
16−18
−375%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 94
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+375%
|
16−18
−375%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+422%
|
18−20
−422%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+422%
|
9−10
−422%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 75−80
+375%
|
16−18
−375%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+400%
|
8−9
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+429%
|
14−16
−429%
|
| Hitman 3 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 85−90
+394%
|
18−20
−394%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 70−75
+407%
|
14−16
−407%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
This is how GTX 680 and GT 640 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680 is 400% faster in 900p
- GTX 680 is 429% faster in 1080p
- GTX 680 is 475% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.45 | 3.06 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 5 June 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 195 Watt | 65 Watt |
GTX 680 has a 372.2% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 640, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 months, and 200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 680 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
