GeForce GT 640M vs Radeon Pro Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro Vega 56 with GeForce GT 640M, including specs and performance data.

Pro Vega 56
2017
8 GB HBM2, 210 Watt
32.01
+1234%

Pro Vega 56 outperforms GT 640M by a whopping 1234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking169836
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation45.03no data
Power efficiency10.605.22
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameVega 10GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)22 March 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 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 cores3584384
Core clock speed1138 MHzUp to 625 MHz
Boost clock speed1250 MHz645 MHz
Number of transistors12,500 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate280.020.00
Floating-point processing power8.96 TFLOPS0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs6416
TMUs22432

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 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 typeHBM2DDR3\GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Memory bus width2048 Bit128bit
Memory clock speed786 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidth402.4 GB/sUp to 64.0 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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI++
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno dataUp to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray-+
Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.1.1251.1.126
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Pro Vega 56 32.01
+1234%
GT 640M 2.40

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Pro Vega 56 12353
+1235%
GT 640M 925

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro Vega 56 25589
+1381%
GT 640M 1728

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro Vega 56 17797
+1353%
GT 640M 1225

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 56 61544
+1827%
GT 640M 3193

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro Vega 56 65862
+2311%
GT 640M 2732

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:

900p300−350
+1054%
26
−1054%
Full HD100
+355%
22
−355%
1200p250−260
+1216%
19
−1216%
4K55
+1275%
4−5
−1275%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+763%
8−9
−763%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+1275%
4−5
−1275%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+3367%
3−4
−3367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1700%
4−5
−1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+1250%
6−7
−1250%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+1455%
10−12
−1455%
Hitman 3 65−70
+857%
7−8
−857%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+600%
20−22
−600%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+1480%
5−6
−1480%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+927%
10−12
−927%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+216%
35−40
−216%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+763%
8−9
−763%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+1275%
4−5
−1275%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+3367%
3−4
−3367%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1700%
4−5
−1700%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+1250%
6−7
−1250%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+1455%
10−12
−1455%
Hitman 3 65−70
+857%
7−8
−857%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+600%
20−22
−600%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+10600%
1−2
−10600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+1480%
5−6
−1480%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+927%
10−12
−927%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+272%
18
−272%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+216%
35−40
−216%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 65−70
+763%
8−9
−763%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+1275%
4−5
−1275%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 65−70
+983%
6−7
−983%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1700%
4−5
−1700%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+1455%
10−12
−1455%
Hitman 3 65−70
+857%
7−8
−857%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+600%
20−22
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+927%
10−12
−927%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 64
+392%
12−14
−392%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+216%
35−40
−216%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+1480%
5−6
−1480%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+1425%
4−5
−1425%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+1125%
4−5
−1125%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+1600%
2−3
−1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+2200%
1−2
−2200%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+1133%
3−4
−1133%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+1433%
12−14
−1433%
Hitman 3 40−45
+471%
7−8
−471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 65−70
+1033%
6−7
−1033%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+1425%
4−5
−1425%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 70−75
+1380%
5−6
−1380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+2050%
2−3
−2050%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
+1107%
14−16
−1107%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Hitman 3 24−27
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+1480%
10−11
−1480%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+1850%
2−3
−1850%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 42
+1300%
3−4
−1300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+1300%
3−4
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%

This is how Pro Vega 56 and GT 640M compete in popular games:

  • Pro Vega 56 is 1054% faster in 900p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 355% faster in 1080p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 1216% faster in 1200p
  • Pro Vega 56 is 1275% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro Vega 56 is 10600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro Vega 56 surpassed GT 640M in all 56 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 32.01 2.40
Recency 14 August 2017 22 March 2012
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 32 Watt

Pro Vega 56 has a 1233.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GT 640M, on the other hand, has 556.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro Vega 56 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 640M 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 Vega 56
Radeon Pro Vega 56
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
GeForce GT 640M

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.


3.5 89 votes

Rate Radeon Pro Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 297 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640M 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.