GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon Pro 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560 with GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.
Pro 560 outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 764% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 493 | 1109 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.20 | 2.22 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (7 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 cores | 1024 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 907 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 32 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.05 | 23.84 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.858 TFLOPS | 0.5722 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 40 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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+833%
|
9−10
−833%
|
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+836%
|
14−16
−836%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+800%
|
7−8
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+833%
|
9−10
−833%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+800%
|
7−8
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+833%
|
9−10
−833%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+920%
|
5−6
−920%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+850%
|
10−11
−850%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.78 | 0.90 |
| 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 764.4% 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
