GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs Radeon HD 8670D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8670D and GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
640 Rev. 2 outperforms HD 8670D by a whopping 167% 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 | 1085 | 786 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 0.95 | 5.15 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | GK208 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 March 2013 (12 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 | 844 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.80 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7296 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | IGP | 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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | - | + |
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.
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 | 18
−150%
| 45−50
+150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.98 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−158%
|
85−90
+158%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−159%
|
75−80
+159%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−140%
|
24−27
+140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−158%
|
85−90
+158%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−150%
|
40−45
+150%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−167%
|
24−27
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−158%
|
85−90
+158%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−131%
|
30−33
+131%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how HD 8670D and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.22 | 3.26 |
| Recency | 12 March 2013 | 29 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 49 Watt |
GT 640 Rev. 2 has a 167.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 104.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8670D in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
