Nvidia GeForce GT 640 Review: Cramming Kepler Into GK107

Test Setup And Benchmarks

We're comparing Afox’s GeForce GT 640 DDR3 to the similarly-priced competition, including the Radeon HD 6670, 6750, and 7750. In addition, we have a GeForce GT 440 GDDR5 and GTS 450 to factor in. Because a number of these boards are actually retail products featuring custom specifications, we wanted to assure you that they've all been set to their reference clock rates in order to create the fairest contest possible.

Both a minimum/average frame rate chart and a frame rate-over-time chart are included for each resolution, as we think the combination of these delivers a great overall picture of actual performance. Frame rates over 60 FPS are only captured in the minimum/average chart, allowing us to hone in on sub-60 FPS performance when it comes to scrutinizing frame rates over time to see where things get choppy.

Test System
CPU
Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E), 3.3 GHz, Six Cores, LGA 2011, 15 MB Shared L3 Cache, Hyper-Threading enabled.
Overclocked to 4.25 GHz
Motherboard
ASRock X79 Extreme9 (LGA 2011) Chipset: Intel X79 Express
Networking
On-Board Gigabit LAN controller
Memory
Corsair Vengeance LP PC3-16000, 4 x 4 GB, 1600 MT/s, CL 8-8-8-24-2T
Graphics
Afox GeForce GT 640
902 MHz GPU, 1 GB DDR3 at 891 MHz

Zotac GeForce GT 440 GDDR5
810 MHz GPU, 521 MB GDDR5 at 810 MHz

MSI N450GTS Cyclone (GeForce GTS 450)
850 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 980 MHz

Reference Radeon HD 6670
800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1000 MHz

Reference Radeon HD 7750
800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1125 MHz

XFX Radeon HD 6750
700 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1150 MHz

All overclocked cards reduced to reference specification for testing
Hard Drive
Samsung 256 GB (SSD)
Power
ePower EP-1200E10-T2 1200 W
ATX12V, EPS12V
Software and Drivers
Operating System
Microsoft Windows 7 x64, Service Pack 1
DirectX
DirectX 11
Graphics Drivers
GeForce: 301.42 WHQL
Radeon: Catalyst 12.4 WHQL
Benchmarks
Battlefield 3
Campaign Mode, "Operation Swordfish" 60-Seconds Fraps
Crysis 2
Adrenaline Crysis 2 Benchmark Tool 1.0.1.13, Times Square, DirectX 11
Aliens vs.
Predator
Version 1.0.0.0, DirectX 11 Benchmark
Metro 2033Full Game, Built-In Benchmark, "Frontline" Scene
DX9, High, AAA, 4x AF, No PhysX
DiRT 3V1.01, Run with -benchmark example_benchmark.xml
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Update 1.4.27, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25 Seconds Fraps
Diablo 3
Single Player Mode, "Old Tristram", 40 seconds FRAPS
Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
118 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Yuka
    Darn... nVidia, step up the game in this segment!

    This doesn't even get close to the card placed just 10 bucks above.

    Cheers!
    31
  • Anonymous
    Would like to see a GDDR5 version of this card. Be interesting to see the performance difference.
    21
  • dalethepcman
    If this card retails for the $100 this article is implying then its a really tough sell. The 7750 outperforms the 640 in every way except loaded power consumption and for a meager $10 more....
    21
  • Other Comments
  • Anonymous
    Would like to see a GDDR5 version of this card. Be interesting to see the performance difference.
    21
  • rolli59
    At least we now have a card from Nvidia that can be called min gaming card and be installed on machines with low power PSU's.
    3
  • Yuka
    Darn... nVidia, step up the game in this segment!

    This doesn't even get close to the card placed just 10 bucks above.

    Cheers!
    31
  • dragonsqrrl
    The DDR3 is without a doubt holding this card back. With a maximum memory bandwidth of just 28.5 GBps I'm surprised the card performed as well as it did. I'm just not sure what Nvidia was thinking. At 900MHz, GK107 would probably be capable of easily outperforming the GTS450. Was it cost savings, or perhaps a TDP limitation that made them choose DDR3 over GDDR5? If keeping below a 75W TDP was the problem, why not just use 1GB GDDR5 instead? Or even slightly lower the core clock if necessary? It probably still would've resulted in better performance.
    4
  • Onus
    Almost, nVidia, almost!
    1. With the GT440 and GT240 offering it, I can't believe someone won't quickly release a GDDR5 version. With such an obvious improvement that would be, it does not bode well for yields or other costs that DDR3 had to be used, and the card still has a $100 initial price. Can it come down to where it needs to be without becoming a "loss-leader?"
    2. Pretty decent settings were used in the charts. Considering how good most modern games look even cut down to "medium" settings, that HD7750 at or near the top of the charts makes people who insist you need a $300 graphics card to play games look silly. This makes me wonder all the more what this new card could do with GDDR5, assuming it's economically feasible. Of course if it isn't, then this card simply loses except in that niche [business] market that wants to run three monitors.
    3. I think the word you were looking for in reference to the absence of a PCIE power connector is "eschew."
    4. Interesting, I noted that the box image is of a Seraphim from the game Sacred 2. Might that [older] game be included with the card, is it meant to advertise that the card supports PhysX (which Sacred 2 will use), or is there a copyright lawsuit on the way?
    13
  • dalethepcman
    If this card retails for the $100 this article is implying then its a really tough sell. The 7750 outperforms the 640 in every way except loaded power consumption and for a meager $10 more....
    21
  • cumi2k4
    where's the 6770 in this benchmark?
    0
  • bin1127
    wow... is this card going to sell for $75?

    I think nvidia doesn't want to kill amd outright and comes up with these really bad products.
    -9
  • rohitbaran
    cumi2k4where's the 6770 in this benchmark?

    6770 is slower than 7750. It is also older gen. Why put that?
    1
  • songorocosongo
    As always Nvidia only makes good products for the high-end market and forgets about low-end or just makes crappy ones. This shouldn't surprise anyone
    16
  • mayankleoboy1
    what about the HTPC perspective?
    -1
  • superflykicks03
    The performance from this card is disappointing. So much for driving down the prices of the 7750s... I've been wanting to start using the 7750 in mid range builds because of the low power/single slot solution. But at 110ish its just not justified compared to the low priced 6850.
    10
  • vancouverboy
    > ... The DVI, VGA, and HDMI outputs are capable of handling a trio of independent displays at the same time. And, unlike AMD's cards, you don't need a DisplayPort monitor or adapter to get the array up and running ... We tested triple-monitor Surround and had no trouble playing DiRT 3 at 5760x1080 using the lowest detail setting.

    For such a low end video card, WOW... things really start get changing now...
    1
  • The Greater Good
    Where the hell is the GTX 660?
    13
  • rdc85
    Looks like 77-- cards price not going down for while... (still waiting 78-- to drop...)
    3
  • 4745454b
    So basically Nvidia FINALLY managed to give us 8800GT performance levels without the 6pin PCIe plug. I know the 8800GT was way ahead of its time, but we are talking 5+ years here aren't we? Its a good card, but way overpriced. If you have $100 you are much better off with the 7750.
    9
  • Anonymous
    needs to be $75 so the kids don't have to mow too many lawns to play D3.
    9
  • slomo4sho
    That is rater poor performance at the $100 mark. Just curious to know how well these scale in SLI since its competitor 7750s seem to scale very well!
    6
  • deltree86
    At hardly 40 bucks more one could get a GTX460 and that has double the performance at least on paper vs this stupid card! Its sad what Nvidia is trying to pass off to customers!
    6
  • americanbrian
    Eschew, Don, not askew aux connectors, last page.

    This has been a friendly reminder from grammar police.
    5