GeForce GT 640M LE vs Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) and GeForce GT 640M LE, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms 640M LE by a substantial 34% 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 | 910 | 989 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 3.80 | 4.01 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 4 May 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $849.99 |
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 | Up to 384 |
| Core clock speed | no data | Up to 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 20 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 12.05 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 256 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 size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 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 type | no data | DDR3\DDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 128bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 785 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | Up to 28.8 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 data | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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:
| 900p | 24−27
+26.3%
| 19
−26.3%
|
| Full HD | 12
−75%
| 21
+75%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 40.48 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 9
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+25%
|
35−40
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Dota 2 | 17
−17.6%
|
20−22
+17.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+10.8%
|
35−40
−10.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+33.3%
|
12−14
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R5 (Bristol Ridge) and GT 640M LE compete in popular games:
- R5 (Bristol Ridge) is 26% faster in 900p
- GT 640M LE is 75% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R5 (Bristol Ridge) is 400% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 640M LE is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Bristol Ridge) performs better in 47 tests (89%)
- GT 640M LE performs better in 3 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.23 | 1.67 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 4 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 20 Watt |
R5 (Bristol Ridge) has a 33.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE 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.
