GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon R9 M395X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M395X and GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M395X
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
11.25
+1136%

R9 M395X outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 1136% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4351151
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency12.072.29
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameAmethystGK107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (10 years ago)3 February 2013 (12 years ago)

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 cores2048384
Core clock speed723 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate92.5423.84
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs12832
L1 Cache512 KB32 KB
L2 Cache512 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/s40 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 outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-3.0

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+1225%
4−5
−1225%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Fortnite 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Valorant 100−110
+1238%
8−9
−1238%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+1225%
4−5
−1225%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 170−180
+1333%
12−14
−1333%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Dota 2 80−85
+1250%
6−7
−1250%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Fortnite 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Valorant 100−110
+1238%
8−9
−1238%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+1225%
4−5
−1225%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Dota 2 80−85
+1250%
6−7
−1250%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1200%
3−4
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+1175%
4−5
−1175%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Valorant 100−110
+1238%
8−9
−1238%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 70−75
+1320%
5−6
−1320%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 90−95
+1200%
7−8
−1200%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+1271%
7−8
−1271%
Valorant 120−130
+1190%
10−11
−1190%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
Hogwarts Legacy 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7 0−1
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Valorant 65−70
+1200%
5−6
−1200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Hogwarts Legacy 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.25 0.91
Recency 5 May 2015 3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 32 Watt

R9 M395X has a 1136.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 681.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M395X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

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 R9 M395X
Radeon R9 M395X
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


4.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M395X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 11 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M395X or GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.