GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon PRO WX 2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon PRO WX 2100 with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

PRO WX 2100
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
4.78
+360%

PRO WX 2100 outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6421096
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.91no data
Power efficiency9.372.23
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameLexaGK107
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date4 June 2017 (7 years ago)3 February 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 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 cores512384
Core clock speed925 MHz745 MHz
Boost clock speed1219 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,200 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate39.0123.84
Floating-point processing power1.248 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs3232

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth48 GB/s40 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 Connectors1x DisplayPort, 2x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+400%
6−7
−400%
Hitman 3 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+400%
9−10
−400%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Battlefield 5 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+400%
6−7
−400%
Hitman 3 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+400%
9−10
−400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+400%
6−7
−400%
Hitman 3 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+400%
9−10
−400%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Hitman 3 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+400%
6−7
−400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.78 1.04
Recency 4 June 2017 3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 32 Watt

PRO WX 2100 has a 359.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 9.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon PRO WX 2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon PRO WX 2100 is a workstation 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 PRO WX 2100
Radeon PRO WX 2100
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.6 50 votes

Rate Radeon PRO WX 2100 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.