Wednesday, March 14th 2012

GeForce GT 640M Benchmarked

On the sidelines of GeForce GTX 680, NVIDIA is working on a fast, cheap, and energy-efficient performance GPU for notebooks, and it's already scoring design wins by the bunches, with notebook manufacturers. PC Perspective got its hands on an Acer Aspire M3 notebook equipped with this chip, and pitted it against notebooks equipped with AMD Radeon HD 6990M, Radeon HD 6720G2, and NVIDIA's own GeForce GT 555M. Intel HD 3000 graphics was also thrown into the cage, for science.

All game tests were run at 1366x768 pixels resolution. With 3DMark 06 and DOW 2: Retribution, the GT 640M seemed to be lagging behind the GT 555M, but managed to edge past it, with 3DMark 11, and Battlefield 3. Five of the most popular, current game titles, Battlefield 3, The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and Batman: Arkham City, were found to be playable at the said resolution, with average frame-rates well over 35 FPS. Find more results at the source.

Source: PCPerspective
Add your own comment

20 Comments on GeForce GT 640M Benchmarked

#1
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Many Thanks to NHKS for the tip.
Posted on Reply
#2
hhumas
I think it will be used in Alienware or Razor gaming notebooks
Posted on Reply
#3
DOM
doesnt look to good vs 550
Posted on Reply
#4
NHKS
If GT640M can keep up with GT555M in performance but with lower power consumption(which we dont know 4 sure yet) then its a step forward for nvidia in mobile graphics.. along with nvidia 'optimus' we can expect better battery up times..
more interesting will be the performance level of 650M when it comes..
Posted on Reply
#5
NC37
640 is still a low end IMO...it is good that it beats a 555 in BF3, but playable at those fps at all times? That is a stretch. I'm sure some matches or levels in BF3 would bring it to it's knees. Same can be said for really any low end GPU.
Posted on Reply
#6
thematrix606
The people who did these benchmarks should be shot.

Now, where is desktop Kepler, who cares about mobile.
Posted on Reply
#7
faramir
by: thematrix606
The people who did these benchmarks should be shot.

Now, where is desktop Kepler, who cares about mobile.
Yeah, shot the messenger, not the manufacturer responsible for loads of hype with no product to show for it. Makes perfect sense ! Where's the thumbs-up smiley ?
Posted on Reply
#8
FreedomEclipse
Crazy Dogmatic Bullsh!t!
by: NC37
640 is still a low end IMO...it is good that it beats a 555 in BF3, but playable at those fps at all times? That is a stretch. I'm sure some matches or levels in BF3 would bring it to it's knees. Same can be said for really any low end GPU.
IMO I wouldnt call it low end, There are loads of Mobile GPUs behind/under the 640M which BF3 would totally be unplayable let alone be considered worth the attempt. Id put it somewhere above halfway inbetween low and midrange. Purely for the fact that BF3 isnt the endall/beall of GPU benchmarks. not everyone plays BF3.

The 640M can most likely play MMO/RPGs and older shooters perfectly on higher settings. Obviously when it comes to BF3 you would need to tone down the settings to get decent frame rate. the settings on the bechmarks were set to 'High' and i think the 640M delivered a good pitch for that level. tone it down to medium or tweak some of the graphical settings and the game will most likely be uber playable.
Posted on Reply
#9
thematrix606
by: faramir
Yeah, shot the messenger, not the manufacturer responsible for loads of hype with no product to show for it. Makes perfect sense ! Where's the thumbs-up smiley ?
No I didn't refer to the performance, but to the professionalism of the benchmarks... they use the 6990m for 3D mark, but not for games, and have different set ups for each benchmark. Dafuq. :banghead:
Posted on Reply
#10
Horrux
Funny how they leave out the 6990m performance in the BF3 chart... I wonder why? :D
Posted on Reply
#11
Over_Lord
News Editor
they should have included Llano APU's scores.

Huh
Posted on Reply
#12
Benetanegia
by: FreedomEclipse
IMO I wouldnt call it low end, There are loads of Mobile GPUs behind/under the 640M which BF3 would totally be unplayable let alone be considered worth the attempt. Id put it somewhere above halfway inbetween low and midrange. Purely for the fact that BF3 isnt the endall/beall of GPU benchmarks. not everyone plays BF3.

The 640M can most likely play MMO/RPGs and older shooters perfectly on higher settings. Obviously when it comes to BF3 you would need to tone down the settings to get decent frame rate. the settings on the bechmarks were set to 'High' and i think the 640M delivered a good pitch for that level. tone it down to medium or tweak some of the graphical settings and the game will most likely be uber playable.
Personally I'd call it low end purely based on the fact that it's using DDR3.

by: Horrux
Funny how they leave out the 6990m performance in the BF3 chart... I wonder why? :D
Well I don't think it was on purpose. Anyway 6990m is top of the line. GT640m is low-end, low mainstream at best and 1/4 of GK104 which is already small-ish at 296 mm^2.
Posted on Reply
#13
chodaboy19
by: Benetanegia
Personally I'd call it low end purely based on the fact that it's using DDR3.
Yeah, it's probably starved for bandwidth.
Posted on Reply
#15
Benetanegia
by: HalfAHertz
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5672/acer-aspire-timelineu-m3-life-on-the-kepler-verge/4 AT did a nice review of a laptop with a 640. At first I thought it was just a rebranded fermi, but it seems it really is a Kepler based design. Kepler's shaders look kinda weak compared to Fermi's. In the review it's pitted against a 560m which has half the shaders...Let's hope it's just the crappy ddr3 keeping it back.
Shaders are definitely weaker, but this "weakness" I think it's because hot-clocks are definitely gone for good. So basically 384 SPs at half the speed in Kepler == 192 SPs in Fermi. Then lower clock (625 vs 775 Mhz) and DDR3 "finish the job".
Posted on Reply
#17
pjladyfox
by: NHKS
If GT640M can keep up with GT555M in performance but with lower power consumption(which we dont know 4 sure yet) then its a step forward for nvidia in mobile graphics.. along with nvidia 'optimus' we can expect better battery up times..
more interesting will be the performance level of 650M when it comes..
I'm curious about this as well since I'm trying to plan my work's laptop/desktop needs for this next generation of GPU's. I'm just hoping that they put these in a refresh for the XPS 15's the 540's in those are just not really cutting the mustard for any decent gaming (bad when your job is working on said games) and your only other option is going with the larger Alienware systems. -_-
Posted on Reply
#18
HalfAHertz
by: Benetanegia
Shaders are definitely weaker, but this "weakness" I think it's because hot-clocks are definitely gone for good. So basically 384 SPs at half the speed in Kepler == 192 SPs in Fermi. Then lower clock (625 vs 775 Mhz) and DDR3 "finish the job".
I just hope it's they're only twice as slow because right now it looks more like roughly 2 and a half GK shaders equal 1 Fermi shader.
Posted on Reply
#19
Benetanegia
by: HalfAHertz
I just hope it's they're only twice as slow because right now it looks more like roughly 2 and a half GK shaders equal 1 Fermi shader.
It's not as bad as it may sound tho. GK104 would be like a 615 SP Fermi which is not bad at all for a 296 mm^2 chip. Faster clocks too.
Posted on Reply
#20
nox007
by: NC37
640 is still a low end IMO...it is good that it beats a 555 in BF3, but playable at those fps at all times? That is a stretch. I'm sure some matches or levels in BF3 would bring it to it's knees. Same can be said for really any low end GPU.
Well, according to notebookcheck.net and other reliable sources 640M is ranked 80 out of 500 graphics cards and is given the class of middle class graphics cards instead of low-end graphics cards, get your information correct and if you would call graphics cards like nvidia 640M a "low-end" graphics card which can easily run battlefield 3 somewhere between medium to high settings then what would u call graphics cards like (HD)4000 huh..........? get ur facts/knowledge about graphics cards correct.
For further information go to-http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment