GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs Radeon HD 6550A
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6550A with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
640 Rev. 2 outperforms HD 6550A by an impressive 95% 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 | 982 | 784 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 3.71 | 5.16 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Pinewood | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 February 2011 (14 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 | 480 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.20 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.528 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 48 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).
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 40.06 GB/s |
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 | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.69 | 3.29 |
| Recency | 7 February 2011 | 29 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 49 Watt |
HD 6550A has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 40% lower power consumption.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 94.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550A in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6550A 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.
