Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question
Solved

Which one to choose between GeForce GT630 and GT640

Tags:
  • GPUs
  • Graphics
  • Memory
  • Geforce
  • Internet
Last response: in Graphics Cards
February 21, 2014 1:35:27 PM

Hello everyone. I am a bit confused. I dug around the internet about GPU's and I seem to find the best answers to my troubles here at this forum.
I currently have a GeForce 210 - 1024MB DDR3 on my system (with Celeron G530 @ 2.4GHz x2, 4GB DDR3 RAM), and I am not satisfied by it at all! I plan on getting another 4GB RAM, but my main concern is what GPU should I get. Please note that I am a casual gamer and I don't require to get 9012809581fps @ maxed out graphic options. Getting in the range of 40-60fps @ medium on Darksiders 2 for example (others are Borderlands 2 and NFS: The Run... tough the new Most Wanted runs perfectly above 30fps oO, while my friends have the opposite problem) would be awesome for me. This is one of the problem games I have even on low graphic options and even at resulutions that are not native to my widescreen(like 1024x768), my monitor's max res is 1440x900 and I prefer to have my games at that res. I narrowed down my choice and funds to these two guys, GT630 and GT640.
Here are the specs at the store:

Palit GeForce GT 630 :
Memory Amount 1024MB
Memory Interface 128bit
DRAM Type GDDR5
Graphics Clock (MHz) 810MHz
Memory Clock (MHz) 1600MHz (DDR 3200MHz)
Processor Clock (MHz) 1620MHz
CUDA Cores 96
Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 51.2

versus

Palit GeForce GT 640:
Memory Amount 1024MB
Memory Interface 64bit
DRAM Type GDDR5
Graphics Clock (MHz) 1046
Memory Clock (MHz) 2505
CUDA Cores 384
Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec) 40

I wonder is it worth to have more CUDA cores for half the MI? I think that memory bandwidth is what matters in the end, but I need a more advanced user opinion. I will be happy on a reasoned and explained advices. I thank this community for answering my previous questions even before I asked them, I appreciate your help and knowledge you share, and thank you in advance!

Best regards,
Plamen Dimitrov
zinbalu@gmail.com

More about : choose geforce gt630 gt640

a b } Memory
February 21, 2014 2:38:40 PM

Choose the GT 640. While it is very limited by its 64 bit memory bus, it does have more stream processors which is more necessary for smooth gaming than memory bandwith. It also makes up for some of the lesser bandwith with higher GPU / Memory clock speeds.
m
0
l
Related resources
February 21, 2014 2:42:52 PM

640 is better. And really think about getting 7750 GDDR5.
m
0
l
February 21, 2014 3:44:28 PM

Okay so obviously the cores produce better results for my situation than the MI. Thank you all for the quick response!
I can see that the HD-7750 has a higher score for a very slightly higher price (in my local store) but seeing the names of Radeon, and AMD puts very negative feelings in me. I had a lot bad previous experiences with similar set ups, mainly in overheating issues! In those days I had to change the thermal paste between the main chip and the coolant quite often. If I am to consider purchasing the 7750 I want to get some user opinion than base statics.
I actually managed to put up some really nice desktop PC configurations for my friends (using nVIDIAs for a lower price) that tend to get results better than my expectations. As for me as I previously relied on AMD processors and Radeon for GPU, and I have very bad memories. Even once a friend asked me how I managed to make a perfect PC set for him, but I constantly fail on mine... :( 

As I mentioned my gamestyle is casual, and I do not demand my pc to excel at the newest Battlefield or Crisis or whatever... As I am a software engineer in logistics in transport, by a common law, I suck at picking hardware. :D 

So hence the two questions:
1. A GT640 will produce better fps at low/medium video settings @ 1440x900 for games that released a year or two ago?
2. Is the 7750's potential for better performance at any currently (or future) releases is better than the GT640?

Thank you for the quick responses! :) 
m
0
l
a c 142 } Memory
February 21, 2014 6:47:10 PM

Not quite sure what you're asking. Better than what? Both the HD 7750 and the GT 640 will provide decent frame rates with medium settings at 1440x900 in the games of the era you mention. The HD 7750, a bit better. I just recently upgraded a budget gamer with a Phenom II X2 270 by adding an HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 and more RAM. These are the notes I wrote for myself after testing:
BF3 @ 1440x900: smooth gameplay at Ultra (single player)
Crysis 3 @ 1440x900: smooth gameplay at medium settings (single player)
3DMarkVantage @ default settings: GPU-10826, CPU-5325
m
0
l

Best solution

February 22, 2014 12:36:45 AM

zinbalu said:

1. A GT640 will produce better fps at low/medium video settings @ 1440x900 for games that released a year or two ago?
2. Is the 7750's potential for better performance at any currently (or future) releases is better than the GT640?

1. No
2. Yes
7750 is better in any asspect.
Some explanations for the cores and the memory. Both are important. You can think about cores as car engine, MI as fuel pipe. If you have big engine but small fuel pipe - the engine will slow down. If you have a small engine with big fuel line - there will be a lot of fuel, but the engine will not be able to use it.
For the graphics card to work best, cores and memory interface must be balanced. And usually they are. But in cheaper video cards sometimes balance is lost. Something has to be cut to fit in the price.
640 and 630 that you post here are not well balanced.
640 is slowed by the memory. 640 has 384 cores, 64bit DDR5, 650 has 384 cores, 128bit DDR5 (2x speed of 640). 650 is much better as the balance of cores and memory is better.
This 630 is very unbalanced - I thought for several minutes that you have made mistake in the specifications. There are 3 variants of 630 and this is uniquely bad (I still find it hard to believe that a sane engineer has released such model). The memory has bandwidth for something like 3 TIMES more powerful card but the cores are very slow.
7750 has fast 128bit GDDR5 and the core can use it (well... almost fully). It is the most affordable card that I can recommend for budget gaming build with clear conscience.
Share
February 22, 2014 1:45:28 AM

Okay thank you everyone for helping me! I decided to go for the 7750. :) 
I just have one more question, does it matter if I get ASUS-7750 or SAPPHIRE-7750, both seem the same.
Just to mention that the ASUS-7750 is the one available around... so I have to spend a few more bucks and shipping time for the SAPPHIRE-7750.

Thank you, once again! I will post here when I get it and try it out!
Best regards,
Plamen Dimitrov
m
0
l
February 22, 2014 3:39:54 AM

Both are good. Asus slightly better. Memory must be GDDR5, there are DDR3 variants which are slower.
m
0
l
a c 142 } Memory
February 22, 2014 1:14:41 PM

A new card just came out that doesn't need a 6 pin connector* that will run circles around the above mentioned cards. The GTX 750 ti. The version that needs no 6 pin is going for ~$150: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Compare it at GPUBOSS with the other cards.

* be careful. some of the GTX 750ti cards do require a 6 pin connector.
m
0
l
February 26, 2014 2:03:47 PM

I guess it is needless to say, but I am exalted with my new graphics (ASUS RADEON HD 7750, 1GB DDR5)!!! I am posting the results with my system as follows:
CPU: Celeron G530 @ 2x2.4GHz
RAM: 2x4GB Kingston @ 1600MHz

Those are the lowest FPS rates that I encountered @ resolution 1440x900, all effects at max, except shadows, which are @ low/medium:
Darksiders 2: 144 FPS;
NFS: The Run: 112 FPS;
Battlefield 3: 131 FPS;
Battlefield 4: 93 FPS;
League of Legends: 202 FPS;
Crysis 3: 98 FPS;
Metro: 109 FPS;
Borderlands 2: 187 FPS;
Devil May Cry (2013): 341 FPS; :o 
Tomb Raider (2013): 147 FPS;

I had situations in NFS: TR and BF4 in cinematics where the FPS was in the 75-85 FPS range.

For the statistics:
Max processor load at all: 81.7%
Max RAM load at all: 77%

Thank you, once again everyone! Your advices were extremely helpful!
m
0
l
a c 142 } Memory
February 26, 2014 2:20:16 PM

Excellent. Glad to hear you are happy with the results. Thanks for posting back.
Isn't it great to play the games at the quality they were designed to be played at ;-)
m
0
l
February 27, 2014 4:07:22 AM

clutchc said:
Excellent. Glad to hear you are happy with the results. Thanks for posting back.
Isn't it great to play the games at the quality they were designed to be played at ;-)


Indeed it is! Knowing that you won't get a FPS spike at a crucial moment, makes gaming really relaxing. :) 
m
0
l