GeForce GT 640 vs Radeon R7 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260 and GeForce GT 640, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 260
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.50
+145%

R7 260 outperforms GT 640 by a whopping 145% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking531769
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.740.20
Power efficiency5.413.23
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBonaireGK107
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date17 December 2013 (11 years ago)5 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 260 has 1770% better value for money than GT 640.

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 cores768384
Core clock speedno data902 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate48.0028.86
Floating-point processing power1.536 TFLOPS0.6927 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4832

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length170 mm145 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 GB/s28.51 GB/s

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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI++
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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.

R7 260 7.50
+145%
GT 640 3.06

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.

R7 260 2891
+145%
GT 640 1178

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.

R7 260 4380
+181%
GT 640 1560

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.50 3.06
Recency 17 December 2013 5 June 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 65 Watt

R7 260 has a 145.1% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

GT 640, on the other hand, has 76.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640 in performance tests.


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 R7 260
Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GT 640
GeForce GT 640

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 50 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1576 votes

Rate GeForce GT 640 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.