GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition vs Radeon Pro 560X

VS

Aggregate performance score

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

Pro 560X
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
9.55
+818%

Pro 560X outperforms GT 640M Mac Edition by a whopping 818% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4621096
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.752.23
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date16 July 2018 (6 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 speed1004 MHz745 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate64.2623.84
Floating-point processing power2.056 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.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD41
+925%
4−5
−925%
1440p39
+875%
4−5
−875%
4K12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+933%
3−4
−933%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Battlefield 5 49
+880%
5−6
−880%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry 5 28
+833%
3−4
−833%
Far Cry New Dawn 38
+850%
4−5
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+967%
6−7
−967%
Hitman 3 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%
Metro Exodus 41
+925%
4−5
−925%
Red Dead Redemption 2 36
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 57
+850%
6−7
−850%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+933%
6−7
−933%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50
+900%
5−6
−900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Battlefield 5 42
+950%
4−5
−950%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry 5 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Far Cry New Dawn 28
+833%
3−4
−833%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+967%
6−7
−967%
Hitman 3 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%
Metro Exodus 33
+1000%
3−4
−1000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 29
+867%
3−4
−867%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+933%
6−7
−933%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Far Cry 5 19
+850%
2−3
−850%
Forza Horizon 4 36
+1100%
3−4
−1100%
Hitman 3 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+960%
5−6
−960%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+900%
2−3
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+933%
6−7
−933%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+925%
4−5
−925%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+900%
6−7
−900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+900%
4−5
−900%
Metro Exodus 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 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 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

This is how Pro 560X and GT 640M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • Pro 560X is 925% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 560X is 875% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 560X is 1100% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.55 1.04
Recency 16 July 2018 3 February 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 32 Watt

Pro 560X has a 818.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 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 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M Mac Edition in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X 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 560X
Radeon Pro 560X
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.


3.6 187 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 560X 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.