GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon HD 8250

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8250 and GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 8250
2013
8 Watt
0.51

640M Mac Edition outperforms HD 8250 by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12831163
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.902.30
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameKalindiGK107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 May 2013 (12 years ago)3 February 2013 (12 years ago)

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 cores128384
Core clock speed300 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed400 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,178 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)8 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate3.20023.84
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs832
L1 Cacheno data32 KB
L2 Cacheno data128 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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data40 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
CUDA-3.0

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Valorant 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Valorant 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−75%
7−8
+75%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Valorant 27−30
−85.2%
50−55
+85.2%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%

1440p
Ultra

Escape from Tarkov 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Valorant 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.51 0.96
Recency 23 May 2013 3 February 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 8 Watt 32 Watt

HD 8250 has an age advantage of 3 months, and 300% lower power consumption.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 88.2% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8250 in performance tests.

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.


AMD Radeon HD 8250
Radeon HD 8250
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition

Other comparisons

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.


2.3 18 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 11 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8250 or GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.