GeForce GT 640 OEM vs Radeon HD 7660D

Place in the ranking	1031	936
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.10	no data
Power efficiency	0.91	2.34
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Devastator	GK107
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	2 October 2012 (12 years ago)	24 April 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$122	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	384	384
Core clock speed	800 MHz	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,303 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	19.20	25.50
Floating-point processing power	0.6144 TFLOPS	0.6121 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	24	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	IGP	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	IGP	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	System Shared	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	2 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	28.51 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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 DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
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 HD

−20%

18−20
+20%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

8.13

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Fortnite	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%
World of Tanks	54 −20.4%	65−70 +20.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	7−8 −28.6%	9−10 +28.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Elden Ring	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how HD 7660D and GT 640 OEM compete in popular games:

GT 640 OEM is 20% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.32	1.70
Recency	2 October 2012	24 April 2012
Chip lithography	32 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	50 Watt

HD 7660D has an age advantage of 5 months.

GT 640 OEM, on the other hand, has a 28.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 640 OEM is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7660D in performance tests.

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