GeForce GT 640 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Place in the ranking	660	769
Place by popularity	39	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.20
Power efficiency	20.59	3.22
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Vega Raven Ridge	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	26 October 2017 (7 years ago)	5 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	512	384
Core clock speed	300 MHz	902 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	9,800 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	65 Watt
Texture fill rate	57.60	28.86
Floating-point processing power	1.843 TFLOPS	0.6927 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	32	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).

Interface	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
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	System Shared	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	28.51 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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 DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.2	1.1.126
CUDA	-	3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 4.51
+47.4%

GT 640 3.06

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 1737
+47.5%

GT 640 1178

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 2381
+52.6%

GT 640 1560

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	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
4K	8 +60%	5−6 −60%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	8.25
4K	no data	19.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9
+50%

6−7

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Battlefield 5	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Far Cry 5	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	18 +50%	12−14 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	58 +65.7%	35−40 −65.7%
Hitman 3	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	22 +57.1%	14−16 −57.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 +60%	10−11 −60%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +58.3%	12−14 −58.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65 +62.5%	40−45 −62.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Battlefield 5	10−12 +57.1%	7−8 −57.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	13 +62.5%	8−9 −62.5%
Forza Horizon 4	52 +48.6%	35−40 −48.6%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +66.7%	18−20 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	17 +70%	10−11 −70%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +60%	10−11 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	31 +47.6%	21−24 −47.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55 +57.1%	35−40 −57.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7 +75%	4−5 −75%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	7 +75%	4−5 −75%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +64.3%	14−16 −64.3%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	15 +50%	10−11 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +50%	30−33 −50%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+66.7%

6−7
−66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +55.6%	18−20 −55.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+60%

5−6

−60%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4 +100%	2−3 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	9 +50%	6−7 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GT 640 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 50% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 60% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.51	3.06
Recency	26 October 2017	5 June 2012
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	65 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 47.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 333.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook card while GeForce GT 640 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.