GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs UHD Graphics 620
Aggregated performance score
GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 outperforms UHD Graphics 620 by 32% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 773 | 684 |
| Place by popularity | 18 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.75 | 0.18 |
| Architecture | Gen. 9.5 (2017) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Kaby-Lake-Refresh GT2 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 September 2017 (6 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
| Current price | $706 | $230 (2.6x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
UHD Graphics 620 has 317% better value for money than GT 640 Rev. 2.
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 | 24 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.60 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 803.3 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on UHD Graphics 620 and GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | LPDDR3/DDR4 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 5008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 40.06 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 VGA |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | 1.1.103 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | 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 | 13
−23.1%
| 16−18
+23.1%
|
| 1440p | 16
−31.3%
| 21−24
+31.3%
|
| 4K | 8
−25%
| 10−12
+25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 620 and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 23.1% faster than UHD Graphics 620 in 1080p
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 31.3% faster than UHD Graphics 620 in 1440p
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 25% faster than UHD Graphics 620 in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 3.52 |
| Recency | 1 September 2017 | 29 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 620 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 620 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.
