NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M vs NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M and NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 11 month(s) later
- 2x more pipelines: 384 vs 192
- Around 4% better floating-point performance: 480.0 gflops vs 462.3 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 3.4x lower typical power consumption: 32 Watt vs 108 Watt
- 2x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 1 GB
- Around 13% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz
- Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 928 vs 824
- 3.7x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 194 vs 53
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 22 March 2012 vs 30 March 2009 |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 480.0 gflops vs 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt vs 108 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1600 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 928 vs 824 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 vs 53 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
- 4.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 13337 vs 3192
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3258 vs 2580
- Around 26% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3258 vs 2580
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 13337 vs 3192 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3258 vs 2580 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3258 vs 2580 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 928 | 824 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 194 | 53 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 3192 | 13337 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.861 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 275.972 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.727 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 15.445 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 17.381 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1476 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1963 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2580 | 3258 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1476 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1963 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2580 | 3258 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M | NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK107 | GT200B |
| Launch date | 22 March 2012 | 30 March 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1358 | 1361 |
| Type | Laptop | Workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799 | |
| Price now | $109.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 9.89 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 645 MHz | |
| CUDA cores | 384 | |
| Floating-point performance | 480.0 gflops | 462.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 192 |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 32 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 1,400 million |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | |
| Texture fill rate | 38.4 GTexel / s | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |
| HDCP | ||
| HDMI | ||
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 198 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1600 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3\GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Blu-Ray | ||
| 3D Vision | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DirectCompute | ||
| DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
ATIMobility Radeon 7500
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 3800
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
ATIMobility Radeon HD 5650
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
NVIDIATesla M2070
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
IntelHD Graphics 4600
NVIDIAGeForce GT 640M vs
AMDRadeon RX Vega 8
