Radeon RX 6600 vs GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition with Radeon RX 6600, including specs and performance data.
RX 6600 outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 3649% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1098 | 116 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 14 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 65.97 |
| Power efficiency | 2.26 | 20.53 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Navi 23 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 February 2013 (11 years ago) | 13 October 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 384 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 745 MHz | 1626 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2491 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 11,060 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 132 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.84 | 279.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5722 TFLOPS | 8.928 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 32 | 112 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 28 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 190 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40 GB/s | 224.0 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.0 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2 |
| 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 HD | 2−3
−5450%
| 111
+5450%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−5500%
| 56
+5500%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 31 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.96 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.88 |
| 4K | no data | 10.61 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 225
+0%
|
225
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 141
+0%
|
141
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 182
+0%
|
182
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 98
+0%
|
98
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 157
+0%
|
157
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 64
+0%
|
64
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 101
+0%
|
101
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+0%
|
53
+0%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
This is how GT 640M Mac Edition and RX 6600 compete in popular games:
- RX 6600 is 5450% faster in 1080p
- RX 6600 is 5500% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.05 | 39.36 |
| Recency | 3 February 2013 | 13 October 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 32 Watt | 132 Watt |
GT 640M Mac Edition has 312.5% lower power consumption.
RX 6600, on the other hand, has a 3648.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
