GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs GTX 1660 Super

Place in the ranking	165	1100
Place by popularity	9	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	56.44	no data
Power efficiency	18.23	2.26
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	TU116	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	29 October 2019 (5 years ago)	3 February 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229	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 cores	1408	384
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	745 MHz
Boost clock speed	1785 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	32 Watt
Texture fill rate	157.1	23.84
Floating-point processing power	5.027 TFLOPS	0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs	48	8
TMUs	88	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 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	229 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	no data

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	GDDR6	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336.0 GB/s	40 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

NVENC	+	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	7.5	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	91 +4450%	2−3 −4450%
1440p	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
4K	30	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.52	no data
1440p	4.16	no data
4K	7.63	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	90 +4400%	2−3 −4400%
Cyberpunk 2077	76 +3700%	2−3 −3700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	92 +4500%	2−3 −4500%
Counter-Strike 2	62 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Cyberpunk 2077	59 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Forza Horizon 4	163 +3160%	5−6 −3160%
Forza Horizon 5	96 +3100%	3−4 −3100%
Metro Exodus	108 +3500%	3−4 −3500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Valorant	143 +3475%	4−5 −3475%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	90−95 +4600%	2−3 −4600%
Counter-Strike 2	52 +5100%	1−2 −5100%
Cyberpunk 2077	49 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Dota 2	166 +3220%	5−6 −3220%
Far Cry 5	147 +3575%	4−5 −3575%
Fortnite	150−160 +3725%	4−5 −3725%
Forza Horizon 4	129 +3125%	4−5 −3125%
Forza Horizon 5	67 +3250%	2−3 −3250%
Grand Theft Auto V	133 +3225%	4−5 −3225%
Metro Exodus	73 +3550%	2−3 −3550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	233 +3229%	7−8 −3229%
Red Dead Redemption 2	43 +4200%	1−2 −4200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	110−120 +3667%	3−4 −3667%
Valorant	77 +3750%	2−3 −3750%
World of Tanks	270−280 +3363%	8−9 −3363%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	79 +3850%	2−3 −3850%
Counter-Strike 2	48 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Cyberpunk 2077	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Dota 2	211 +3417%	6−7 −3417%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +4400%	2−3 −4400%
Forza Horizon 4	112 +3633%	3−4 −3633%
Forza Horizon 5	67 +3250%	2−3 −3250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	180−190 +3620%	5−6 −3620%
Valorant	122 +3967%	3−4 −3967%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	62 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Grand Theft Auto V	62 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	162 +3140%	5−6 −3140%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27	0−1
World of Tanks	210−220 +3450%	6−7 −3450%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	56 +5500%	1−2 −5500%
Counter-Strike 2	29	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	25	0−1
Far Cry 5	100−110 +3400%	3−4 −3400%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +3900%	2−3 −3900%
Forza Horizon 5	39 +3800%	1−2 −3800%
Metro Exodus	67 +3250%	2−3 −3250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Valorant	73 +3550%	2−3 −3550%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16	0−1
Dota 2	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Metro Exodus	22	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	101 +3267%	3−4 −3267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	29	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	21−24	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	11	0−1
Dota 2	95 +3067%	3−4 −3067%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +4600%	1−2 −4600%
Fortnite	40−45 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Forza Horizon 4	44 +4300%	1−2 −4300%
Forza Horizon 5	22	0−1
Valorant	34 +3300%	1−2 −3300%

This is how GTX 1660 Super and GT 640M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

GTX 1660 Super is 4450% faster in 1080p
GTX 1660 Super is 5400% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	31.85	1.01
Recency	29 October 2019	3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount	6 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	125 Watt	32 Watt

GTX 1660 Super has a 3053.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 290.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1660 Super is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1660 Super is a desktop card while GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is a notebook one.

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