Skip to main content

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
CPUIntel 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
MotherboardASRock X79 Extreme9 (LGA 2011) Chipset: Intel X79 Express
NetworkingOn-Board Gigabit LAN controller
MemoryCorsair Vengeance LP PC3-16000, 4 x 4 GB, 1600 MT/s, CL 8-8-8-24-2T
GraphicsAfox GeForce GT 640902 MHz GPU, 1 GB DDR3 at 891 MHzZotac GeForce GT 440 GDDR5810 MHz GPU, 521 MB GDDR5 at 810 MHzMSI N450GTS Cyclone (GeForce GTS 450)850 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 980 MHzReference Radeon HD 6670800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1000 MHzReference Radeon HD 7750800 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1125 MHzXFX Radeon HD 6750700 MHz GPU, 1 GB GDDR5 at 1150 MHzAll overclocked cards reduced to reference specification for testing
Hard DriveSamsung 256 GB (SSD)
PowerePower EP-1200E10-T2 1200 W ATX12V, EPS12V
Software and Drivers
Operating SystemMicrosoft Windows 7 x64, Service Pack 1
DirectXDirectX 11
Graphics DriversGeForce: 301.42 WHQLRadeon: Catalyst 12.4 WHQL
Benchmarks
Battlefield 3Campaign Mode, "Operation Swordfish" 60-Seconds Fraps
Crysis 2Adrenaline Crysis 2 Benchmark Tool 1.0.1.13, Times Square, DirectX 11
Aliens vs. PredatorVersion 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: SkyrimUpdate 1.4.27, Celedon Aethirborn Level 6, 25 Seconds Fraps
Diablo 3Single Player Mode, "Old Tristram", 40 seconds FRAPS
  • Would like to see a GDDR5 version of this card. Be interesting to see the performance difference.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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!
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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 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 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?
    Reply
  • 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....
    Reply
  • cumi2k4
    where's the 6770 in this benchmark?
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • rohitbaran
    cumi2k4where's the 6770 in this benchmark?6770 is slower than 7750. It is also older gen. Why put that?
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply