Iris Xe MAX Graphics vs GeForce GT 640M LE

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640M LE and Iris Xe MAX Graphics, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 640M LE
2012
2 GB DDR3\DDR5, 20 Watt
1.84

Iris Xe MAX Graphics outperforms GT 640M LE by a whopping 178% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking911617
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency3.9814.16
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameGF108DG1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date4 May 2012 (12 years ago)31 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$849.99 no data

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 coresUp to 384768
Core clock speedUp to 500 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors585 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate12.0579.20
Floating-point processing power0.289 TFLOPS2.534 TFLOPS
ROPs424
TMUs1648

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4

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 typeDDR3\DDR5LPDDR4X
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed785 MHz2133 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 28.8 GB/s68.26 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA+-

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.

GT 640M LE 1.84
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 5.11
+178%

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.

GT 640M LE 709
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 1971
+178%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 640M LE 1259
Iris Xe MAX Graphics 8214
+552%

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:

900p19
−163%
50−55
+163%
Full HD19
−42.1%
27
+42.1%
1440p6−7
−183%
17
+183%
4K5−6
−220%
16
+220%

Cost per frame, $

1080p44.74no data
1440p141.67no data
4K170.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−3500%
35−40
+3500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−360%
21−24
+360%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−540%
30−35
+540%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−986%
75−80
+986%
Hitman 3 6−7
−300%
24
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−259%
60−65
+259%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−725%
33
+725%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−311%
35−40
+311%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−94.3%
65−70
+94.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−3500%
35−40
+3500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−360%
21−24
+360%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−540%
30−35
+540%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−986%
75−80
+986%
Hitman 3 6−7
−283%
23
+283%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−259%
60−65
+259%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−700%
30−35
+700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−267%
33
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−142%
27−30
+142%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−94.3%
65−70
+94.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
−286%
27−30
+286%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−360%
21−24
+360%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−800%
27−30
+800%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−986%
75−80
+986%
Hitman 3 6−7
−250%
21
+250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
−52.9%
26
+52.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
−222%
29
+222%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−50%
18
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−94.3%
65−70
+94.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−525%
25
+525%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−467%
16−18
+467%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%
Hitman 3 7−8
−100%
14−16
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−360%
21−24
+360%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1000%
10−12
+1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
−620%
70−75
+620%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−280%
18−20
+280%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−250%
7−8
+250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 5−6
Far Cry 5 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 4−5

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 19
+0%
19
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6
+0%
6
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 20
+0%
20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+0%
11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how GT 640M LE and Iris Xe MAX Graphics compete in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 163% faster in 900p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 42% faster in 1080p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 183% faster in 1440p
  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 220% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Iris Xe MAX Graphics is 3500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Iris Xe MAX Graphics is ahead in 53 tests (76%)
  • there's a draw in 17 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.84 5.11
Recency 4 May 2012 31 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 25 Watt

GT 640M LE has 25% lower power consumption.

Iris Xe MAX Graphics, on the other hand, has a 177.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Iris Xe MAX Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE in performance tests.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M LE
GeForce GT 640M LE
Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics
Iris Xe MAX Graphics

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.3 58 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 252 votes

Rate Iris Xe MAX Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.