Nvidia GeForce GT 640 Review: Cramming Kepler Into GK107

Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3

Battlefield 3 is an immensely popular first-person shooter endowed with delightfully detailed visuals.

The GeForce GT 640 does well enough in Battlefield 3 at 1680x1050 with a minimum frame rate of 28 FPS. Really, that’s the card’s target resolution, and it performs a lot like the Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5.

Setting a 1920x1080 resolution is a little unrealistic for the GK107-based board, which dips down as low as 25 FPS.

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
  • 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
  • Would like to see a GDDR5 version of this card. Be interesting to see the performance difference.
    21
  • 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
  • Would like to see a GDDR5 version of this card. Be interesting to see the performance difference.
    21
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • where's the 6770 in this benchmark?
    0
  • 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
  • cumi2k4where's the 6770 in this benchmark?

    6770 is slower than 7750. It is also older gen. Why put that?
    1
  • 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
  • what about the HTPC perspective?
    -1
  • 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
  • > ... 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
  • Where the hell is the GTX 660?
    13
  • Looks like 77-- cards price not going down for while... (still waiting 78-- to drop...)
    3
  • 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
  • needs to be $75 so the kids don't have to mow too many lawns to play D3.
    9
  • 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
  • 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
  • Eschew, Don, not askew aux connectors, last page.

    This has been a friendly reminder from grammar police.
    5