GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon Pro 560

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 560 with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

Pro 560
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.02
+767%

Pro 560 outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 767% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4791096
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.252.23
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date18 April 2017 (7 years ago)3 February 2013 (11 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 cores1024384
Core clock speed907 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate58.0523.84
Floating-point processing power1.858 TFLOPS0.5722 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs6432

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
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 amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo 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 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+1000%
2−3
−1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+900%
3−4
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+850%
6−7
−850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+800%
4−5
−800%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.02 1.04
Recency 18 April 2017 3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 32 Watt

Pro 560 has a 767.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 134.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition is a mobile workstation 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 560
Radeon Pro 560
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.


4 113 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560 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.