GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs Radeon HD 8690M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 8550M HD 8570A HD 8570M HD 8590M HD 8670A HD 8670M HD 8690M R5 M230 Rebrand
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
610 610 OEM 610 PCI 610 PCIe x1 620 620 OEM 625 OEM 630 630 OEM 630 Rev. 2 630 Rev. 2 PCIe x8 635 OEM 640 640 OEM 640 OEM Rebrand 640 Rev. 2 645 OEM

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8690M with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.

HD 8690M
2013
1 GB GDDR5
2.23

640 Rev. 2 outperforms HD 8690M by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
HD 8690M HD 8690M
GT 640 Rev. 2 GT 640 Rev. 2

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking887781
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.19
Power efficiencyno data5.13
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameSunGK208
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 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.

no data

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 cores320384
Core clock speed775 MHz1046 MHz
Boost clock speed825 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data49 Watt
Texture fill rate16.5033.47
Floating-point processing power0.528 TFLOPS0.8033 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2032
L1 Cache80 KB32 KB
L2 Cache128 KB128 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x8
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1252 MHz
Memory bandwidth32 GB/s40.06 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
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 HD17
−23.5%
21−24
+23.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.24

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Fortnite 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Valorant 40−45
−31%
55−60
+31%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
−38.3%
65−70
+38.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Fortnite 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Valorant 40−45
−31%
55−60
+31%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 24−27
−20%
30−33
+20%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Valorant 40−45
−31%
55−60
+31%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−23.5%
21−24
+23.5%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
−36.4%
30−33
+36.4%
Valorant 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Valorant 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

This is how HD 8690M and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:

  • GT 640 Rev. 2 is 24% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 2.23 3.11
Recency 1 March 2013 29 May 2013

GT 640 Rev. 2 has a 39.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 months.

The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8690M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8690M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.

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 8690M
Radeon HD 8690M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

HD 8690M Radeon HD 8690M
vs
HD Graphics 530 HD Graphics 530
GT 640 Rev. 2 GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2
vs
ATI HD 4870 Radeon HD 4870
HD 8690M Radeon HD 8690M
vs
GeForce 830M GeForce 830M
R7 M360 Radeon R7 M360
vs
Radeon 550X Radeon 550X
R7 M360 Radeon R7 M360
vs
520 OEM Radeon 520 OEM
R7 (Carrizo) Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
vs
GT 740A GeForce GT 740A
R7 (Carrizo) Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
vs
Radeon Next Radeon Next
R7 (Carrizo) Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
vs
RX 5300 Radeon RX 5300
HD 8690M Radeon HD 8690M
vs
7800 GTX GeForce 7800 GTX
HD 8690M Radeon HD 8690M
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
R8 M445DX Radeon R8 M445DX
vs
GeForce2 MX DH Pro TV PCI GeForce2 MX DH Pro TV PCI
R7 M440 Radeon R7 M440
vs
ATI Mobility HD 4670 Mobility Radeon HD 4670
R7 M440 Radeon R7 M440
vs
ATI 9800 XT Mac Edition Radeon 9800 XT Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.6 98 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8690M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 34 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8690M or GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.