Arc A580 vs GeForce GT 640M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 640M with Arc A580, including specs and performance data.

GT 640M
2012
2 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 32 Watt
2.40

Arc A580 outperforms GT 640M by a whopping 1158% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking836182
Place by popularitynot in top-100100
Power efficiency5.3612.32
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-512
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)10 October 2023 (1 year ago)

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 cores3843072
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz1700 MHz
Boost clock speed645 MHz2000 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)32 Watt175 Watt
Texture fill rate20.00384.0
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS12.29 TFLOPS
ROPs1696
TMUs32192
Tensor Coresno data384
Ray Tracing Coresno data24

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeDDR3\GDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 64.0 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.13.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
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 2.40
Arc A580 30.19
+1158%

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 925
Arc A580 11648
+1159%

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 1728
Arc A580 35210
+1938%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 640M 7425
Arc A580 95677
+1189%

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.

GT 640M 1225
Arc A580 27574
+2151%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 640M 9024
Arc A580 113974
+1163%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GT 640M 80836
Arc A580 593548
+634%

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:

900p26
−1054%
300−350
+1054%
Full HD22
−382%
106
+382%
1200p19
−1111%
230−240
+1111%
1440p4−5
−1375%
59
+1375%
4K2−3
−1600%
34
+1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1100%
60−65
+1100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−1188%
103
+1188%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−4333%
130−140
+4333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−1300%
80−85
+1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1100%
60−65
+1100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−2125%
85−90
+2125%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−1600%
100−110
+1600%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−1691%
190−200
+1691%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1171%
85−90
+1171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−755%
170−180
+755%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−13000%
130−140
+13000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−1300%
150−160
+1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−257%
130−140
+257%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−1175%
102
+1175%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−4333%
130−140
+4333%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−1300%
80−85
+1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1100%
60−65
+1100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−2125%
85−90
+2125%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−1600%
100−110
+1600%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−1691%
190−200
+1691%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1171%
85−90
+1171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−755%
170−180
+755%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−13000%
130−140
+13000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−1845%
214
+1845%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−378%
85−90
+378%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−257%
130−140
+257%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−700%
64
+700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−1300%
80−85
+1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−1100%
60−65
+1100%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−2125%
85−90
+2125%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−691%
87
+691%
Hitman 3 7−8
−1171%
85−90
+1171%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
−445%
109
+445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
−1509%
177
+1509%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
−423%
68
+423%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−62.2%
60
+62.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1800%
95−100
+1800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5
−1925%
80−85
+1925%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−1500%
60−65
+1500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−2600%
54
+2600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1500%
45−50
+1500%
Hitman 3 7−8
−686%
55−60
+686%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
−1350%
87
+1350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−2650%
55
+2650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
−1314%
190−200
+1314%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−1340%
70−75
+1340%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 40−45
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3400%
35−40
+3400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−1650%
35
+1650%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2900%
30
+2900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2400%
24−27
+2400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 27

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1133%
35−40
+1133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 85
+0%
85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 73
+0%
73
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 64
+0%
64
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 91
+0%
91
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 130
+0%
130
+0%

4K
High Preset

Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61
+0%
61
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 56
+0%
56
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 73
+0%
73
+0%

This is how GT 640M and Arc A580 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A580 is 1054% faster in 900p
  • Arc A580 is 382% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A580 is 1111% faster in 1200p
  • Arc A580 is 1375% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A580 is 1600% faster in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Arc A580 is 13000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A580 is ahead in 51 test (80%)
  • there's a draw in 13 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.40 30.19
Recency 22 March 2012 10 October 2023
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 32 Watt 175 Watt

GT 640M has 446.9% lower power consumption.

Arc A580, on the other hand, has a 1157.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 640M is a notebook card while Arc A580 is a desktop one.


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
GeForce GT 640M
Intel Arc A580
Arc A580

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.


3.7 297 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 250 votes

Rate Arc A580 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.