GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R7 M260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 M260 with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
GT 640 Rev. 2 outperforms R7 M260 by a whopping 175% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1035 | 721 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.19 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Opal Pro / Mars | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2014 (10 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 640 Rev. 2 has 850% better value for money than R7 M260.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 384 |
| Compute units | 6 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 715 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 980 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.52 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.7526 gflops | 0.8033 gflops |
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 | no data |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 5008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 40.06 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| 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 | 14
−150%
| 35−40
+150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−173%
|
90−95
+173%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−173%
|
90−95
+173%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−163%
|
21−24
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−173%
|
90−95
+173%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−157%
|
18−20
+157%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
This is how R7 M260 and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 150% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.29 | 3.55 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 29 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
R7 M260 has an age advantage of 7 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 175.2% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 M260 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
