Trending

Nvidia GeForce GT 640 Review: Cramming Kepler Into GK107

By Components 

Afox sent us its rendition of the new GeForce GT 640, based on Nvidia's GK107 GPU. This one slots in under the existing GeForce GTS 450 to do battle with AMD's Radeon HD 6670. Does the Kepler architecture deliver, or is a $100 price target too high?

Benchmark Results: DiRT 3

DiRT 3 is an ideal benchmark for low-end graphics cards because it manages to both look exceptional and run smoothly on modest hardware.

In this title, the GeForce GT 640 DDR3 bests the Radeon HD 6670 GDDR5 by a slight margin. As we’ve come to expect already, the Radeon HD 7750 enjoys a significant lead.

116 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 05 June 2012 08:40
    Would like to see a GDDR5 version of this card. Be interesting to see the performance difference.
    Reply
  • rolli59 05 June 2012 08:42
    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 05 June 2012 08:51
    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 05 June 2012 08:53
    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 05 June 2012 08:53
    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 05 June 2012 09:02
    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 05 June 2012 09:06
    where's the 6770 in this benchmark?
    Reply
  • bin1127 05 June 2012 09:12
    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 05 June 2012 09:19
    cumi2k4where's the 6770 in this benchmark?6770 is slower than 7750. It is also older gen. Why put that?
    Reply
  • songorocosongo 05 June 2012 09:35
    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