GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 vs Quadro K1100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K1100M with GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2, including specs and performance data.
GT 640 Rev. 2 outperforms K1100M by a significant 26% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 799 | 728 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.12 | 0.19 |
| Power efficiency | 4.33 | 5.02 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 29 May 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109.94 | $89 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
K1100M has 489% better value for money than GT 640 Rev. 2.
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 706 MHz | 1046 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 49 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.59 | 33.47 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5422 TFLOPS | 0.8033 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 1252 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 44.8 GB/s | 40.06 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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.5 |
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 | 17
−23.5%
| 21−24
+23.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.47
−52.6%
| 4.24
+52.6%
|
- GT 640 Rev. 2 has 53% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
−17.6%
|
60−65
+17.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−15.4%
|
30−33
+15.4%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
−20%
|
24−27
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how K1100M and GT 640 Rev. 2 compete in popular games:
- GT 640 Rev. 2 is 24% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.83 | 3.57 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 29 May 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 49 Watt |
K1100M has an age advantage of 1 month, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 8.9% lower power consumption.
GT 640 Rev. 2, on the other hand, has a 26.1% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K1100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
