GeForce 7950 GX2 vs Radeon HD 7640G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7640G with GeForce 7950 GX2, including specs and performance data.
HD 7640G outperforms 7950 GX2 by a whopping 127% 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 | 1127 | 1293 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.36 | 0.33 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Devastator Lite | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 May 2012 (13 years ago) | 5 June 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
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 | 256 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 496 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 685 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 110 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.96 | 12.00 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3507 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 ×2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 24 ×2 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 270 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 38.4 GB/s ×2 |
| 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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:
| Full HD | 10
+150%
| 4−5
−150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 149.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7640G and 7950 GX2 compete in popular games:
- HD 7640G is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 0.45 |
| Recency | 15 May 2012 | 5 June 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 110 Watt |
HD 7640G has a 126.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 181.3% more advanced lithography process, and 214.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7640G is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7950 GX2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7640G is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 7950 GX2 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.
