FireStream 9250 vs GeForce GT 640
FireStream 9250
Popular choices:
GeForce GT 640
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FireStream 9250 is positioned at rank 340 and the GeForce GT 640 is on rank 107, so the GeForce GT 640 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9250
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 640
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GT 640 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.3% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (4 GB vs 1 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FireStream 9250.
| Insight | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / TeraScale (2005−2013)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The FireStream 9250 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FireStream 9250 holds the technical lead. Priced at $49 (vs $50), it costs 2% less, resulting in a 1.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1.7%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($49) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FireStream 9250 and GeForce GT 640
FireStream 9250
The FireStream 9250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 16 2008. It features the TeraScale architecture. The core clock speed is 625 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,165 points.
GeForce GT 640
The GeForce GT 640 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 5 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 902 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 65W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,169 points. Launch price was $99.
Graphics Performance
The FireStream 9250 scores 1,165 and the GeForce GT 640 reaches 1,169 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FireStream 9250 is built on TeraScale while the GeForce GT 640 uses Kepler, both on 55 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 800 (FireStream 9250) vs 384 (GeForce GT 640). Raw compute: 1 TFLOPS (FireStream 9250) vs 0.6927 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 640).
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,165 | 1,169 |
| Architecture | TeraScale | Kepler |
| Process Node | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 800+108% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1 TFLOPS+44% | 0.6927 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+25% | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB+400% | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FireStream 9250 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GT 640 has 4 GB. The GeForce GT 640 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 4 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (FireStream 9250) vs 11.0 (GeForce GT 640). Vulkan: N/A vs 1.1. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.5. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 3.
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 11.0+9% |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5+36% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 3+200% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (FireStream 9250) vs NVENC 1.0 (GeForce GT 640). Decoder: UVD 2.0 vs PureVideo HD VP5. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1 (FireStream 9250) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 640).
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | NVENC 1.0 |
| Decoder | UVD 2.0 | PureVideo HD VP5 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP |
Power & Dimensions
The FireStream 9250 draws 150W versus the GeForce GT 640's 65W — a 79.1% difference. The GeForce GT 640 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FireStream 9250) vs 300W (GeForce GT 640). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 234mm vs 145mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: Unknown vs 60°C.
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 65W-57% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 300W-14% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 234mm | 145mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | Unknown-100% | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 7.8 | 18.0+131% |
Value Analysis
The FireStream 9250 launched at $999 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the GeForce GT 640 launched at $99 and now averages $50. The FireStream 9250 costs 2% less ($1 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.8 (FireStream 9250) vs 23.4 (GeForce GT 640) — the FireStream 9250 offers 1.7% better value. The GeForce GT 640 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2008).
| Feature | FireStream 9250 | GeForce GT 640 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $999 | $99-90% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49-2% | $50 |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.8+2% | 23.4 |
| Codename | RV770 | GK107 |
| Release | June 16 2008 | June 5 2012 |
| Ranking | #840 | #837 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FireStream 9250 and GeForce GT 640
