GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon RX Vega 56

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
29.41
+3168%

RX Vega 56 outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 3168% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1651115
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation20.41no data
Power efficiency11.112.23
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameVega 10GK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)3 February 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3584384
Core clock speed1156 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed1471 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate329.523.84
Floating-point processing power10.54 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs22432

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno 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 typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB512 MB
Memory bus width2048 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/s40 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.1.1251.1.126
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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD115
+3733%
3−4
−3733%
1440p77
+3750%
2−3
−3750%
4K50
+4900%
1−2
−4900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.47no data
1440p5.18no data
4K7.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 90−95
+4500%
2−3
−4500%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+3560%
5−6
−3560%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+3500%
2−3
−3500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 90−95
+4500%
2−3
−4500%
Battlefield 5 151
+3675%
4−5
−3675%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+3560%
5−6
−3560%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+3500%
2−3
−3500%
Far Cry 5 98
+4800%
2−3
−4800%
Fortnite 150
+3650%
4−5
−3650%
Forza Horizon 4 141
+3425%
4−5
−3425%
Forza Horizon 5 100−105
+3233%
3−4
−3233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 153
+3725%
4−5
−3725%
Valorant 190−200
+3200%
6−7
−3200%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 90−95
+4500%
2−3
−4500%
Battlefield 5 140
+3400%
4−5
−3400%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+3560%
5−6
−3560%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+3338%
8−9
−3338%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+3500%
2−3
−3500%
Dota 2 130−140
+3300%
4−5
−3300%
Far Cry 5 93
+4550%
2−3
−4550%
Fortnite 139
+3375%
4−5
−3375%
Forza Horizon 4 134
+3250%
4−5
−3250%
Forza Horizon 5 100−105
+3233%
3−4
−3233%
Grand Theft Auto V 94
+4600%
2−3
−4600%
Metro Exodus 70
+3400%
2−3
−3400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 137
+3325%
4−5
−3325%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 124
+4033%
3−4
−4033%
Valorant 190−200
+3200%
6−7
−3200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 131
+3175%
4−5
−3175%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+3500%
2−3
−3500%
Dota 2 130−140
+3300%
4−5
−3300%
Far Cry 5 89
+4350%
2−3
−4350%
Forza Horizon 4 109
+3533%
3−4
−3533%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120
+3900%
3−4
−3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+3600%
2−3
−3600%
Valorant 190−200
+3200%
6−7
−3200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 108
+3500%
3−4
−3500%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+3750%
2−3
−3750%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+3567%
6−7
−3567%
Grand Theft Auto V 60−65
+6100%
1−2
−6100%
Metro Exodus 42
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+3400%
5−6
−3400%
Valorant 230−240
+3243%
7−8
−3243%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 99
+3200%
3−4
−3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Far Cry 5 74
+3600%
2−3
−3600%
Forza Horizon 4 88
+4300%
2−3
−4300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+5600%
1−2
−5600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 74
+3600%
2−3
−3600%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Grand Theft Auto V 50
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Metro Exodus 27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+4300%
1−2
−4300%
Valorant 190−200
+3740%
5−6
−3740%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 0−1
Dota 2 95−100
+4750%
2−3
−4750%
Far Cry 5 39
+3800%
1−2
−3800%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+5800%
1−2
−5800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 44
+4300%
1−2
−4300%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 37
+3600%
1−2
−3600%

This is how RX Vega 56 and GT 640M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 56 is 3733% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 56 is 3750% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 56 is 4900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 29.41 0.90
Recency 14 August 2017 3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 32 Watt

RX Vega 56 has a 3167.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 556.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition 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 RX Vega 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
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.


4.3 854 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 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 RX Vega 56 or GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.