GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs GT 820M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 820M with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
GT 640 Rev. 2 outperforms GT 820M by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 986 | 717 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 6.97 | 5.23 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 27 November 2013 (10 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $89 |
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 | 96 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.40 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2976 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 40.06 GB/s |
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 | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 3.5 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.45 | 3.55 |
| Recency | 27 November 2013 | 29 May 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 49 Watt |
GT 820M has an age advantage of 5 months, and 226.7% lower power consumption.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 144.8% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 820M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 820M 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.
