GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon HD 6550D

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6550D with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

HD 6550D
2011
65 Watt
1.03

GT 640M Mac Edition outperforms HD 6550D by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11081105
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.102.26
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameSumoGK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 June 2011 (13 years ago)3 February 2013 (12 years 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 cores400384
Core clock speed600 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate12.0023.84
Floating-point processing power0.48 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2032

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16
WidthIGPno 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data40 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 outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.05.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.21.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
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 HD19
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Fortnite 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
World of Tanks 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
World of Tanks 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how HD 6550D and GT 640M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • HD 6550D is 6% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.03 1.04
Recency 20 June 2011 3 February 2013
Chip lithography 32 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 32 Watt

GT 640M Mac Edition has a 1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 103.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 6550D and GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6550D 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.

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.


AMD Radeon HD 6550D
Radeon HD 6550D
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition

Other comparisons

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 93 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6550D on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition 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.