GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs Radeon R9 FURY X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 FURY X and GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 FURY X outperforms GT 640 Rev. 2 by a whopping 599% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 215 | 717 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.83 | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 6.25 | 5.02 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GK208 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 24 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R9 FURY X has 3495% better value for money than GT 640 Rev. 2.
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 | 4096 | 384 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 268.8 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.602 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 256 | 32 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | 191 mm | 145 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | GDDR5 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 40.06 GB/s |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 24.83 | 3.55 |
| Recency | 24 June 2015 | 29 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 275 Watt | 49 Watt |
R9 FURY X has a 599.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has 461.2% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 FURY X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 in performance tests.
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.
