GeForce GT 640M LE vs Radeon R7 350

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 7730 HD 7750 HD 7770 HD 8730 OEM HD 8740 OEM HD 8760 OEM R7 250E R7 250X R7 350 R7 350 640SP R7 450 OEM R9 255 OEM
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
615 GT 415M GT 420M GT 425M GT 435M GT 520M GT 525M GT 540M GT 550M GT 620M GT 630M GT 640M LE

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 350 with GeForce GT 640M LE, including specs and performance data.

R7 350
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
4.84
+208%

R7 350 outperforms 640M LE by a whopping 208% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R7 350 R7 350
GT 640M LE GT 640M LE

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking665983
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.02
Power efficiency7.123.97
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCape VerdeGF108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 July 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.

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 cores512Up to 384
Core clock speed800 MHzUp to 500 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate25.6012.05
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPS0.289 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs3216
L1 Cache128 KB128 KB
L2 Cache256 KB256 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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3\DDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128bit
Memory clock speed1125 MHz785 MHz
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sUp 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI++
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp 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.

DirectX12 (11_1)12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

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:

900p55−60
+189%
19
−189%
Full HD60−65
+186%
21
−186%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data40.48

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

This is how R7 350 and GT 640M LE compete in popular games:

  • R7 350 is 189% faster in 900p
  • R7 350 is 186% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 53 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 4.84 1.57
Recency 6 July 2016 4 May 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 20 Watt

R7 350 has a 208.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M LE, on the other hand, has 175% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 640M LE is a notebook 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 R7 350
Radeon R7 350
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M LE
GeForce GT 640M LE
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
Radeon 550 Radeon 550
GT 640M LE GeForce GT 640M LE
vs
R6 (Kaveri) Radeon R6 (Kaveri)
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
HD 7770 Radeon HD 7770
Radeon 530X Radeon 530X
vs
RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 4 GB RTX 3050 Max-Q Refresh 4 GB
NX-SoC NX SoC
vs
8400 GS PCI Rev. 2 GeForce 8400 GS PCI Rev. 2
P102-100 P102 100
vs
RTX 4060 Ti Mobile RTX 4060 Ti Mobile
P102-100 P102 100
vs
RTX 4060 Ti AD104 RTX 4060 Ti AD104
P102-100 P102 100
vs
AI PRO R9700 AI PRO R9700
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
HD 6530 HD 6530
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
R7 M270DX R7 M270DX
R7 350 Radeon R7 350
vs
RX 640 RX 640
R7 240 OEM Radeon R7 240 OEM
vs
R7 M270DX R7 M270DX
R7 240 OEM Radeon R7 240 OEM
vs
MX450 25W GeForce MX450 25W

Community ratings

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

3.8 553 votes

Rate Radeon R7 350 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 62 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 350 or GeForce GT 640M LE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.