GeForce GT 640 vs FireStream 9250
GeForce GT 640
Popular choices:
FireStream 9250
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 GeForce GT 640 is positioned at rank 107 and the FireStream 9250 is on rank 340, 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 GeForce GT 640
Performance Per Dollar FireStream 9250
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 | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / TeraScale (2005−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+1.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($49) |
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 GeForce GT 640 and FireStream 9250
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 640 scores 1,169 and the FireStream 9250 reaches 1,165 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 640 is built on Kepler while the FireStream 9250 uses TeraScale, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 640) vs 800 (FireStream 9250). Raw compute: 0.6927 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 640) vs 1 TFLOPS (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,169 | 1,165 |
| Architecture | Kepler | TeraScale |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 800+108% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6927 TFLOPS | 1 TFLOPS+44% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40+25% |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 160 KB+400% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce GT 640 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the FireStream 9250 has 1 GB. The GeForce GT 640 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+300% | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce GT 640) vs 10.1 (FireStream 9250). Vulkan: 1.1 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 1.
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0+9% | 10.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | N/A |
| OpenGL | 4.5+36% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 3+200% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (GeForce GT 640) vs None (FireStream 9250). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs UVD 2.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 640) vs H.264,VC-1 (FireStream 9250).
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1.0 | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | UVD 2.0 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP | H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 640 draws 65W versus the FireStream 9250's 150W — a 79.1% difference. The GeForce GT 640 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GT 640) vs 350W (FireStream 9250). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 145mm vs 234mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs Unknown.
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W-57% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 145mm | 234mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | Unknown-100% |
| Perf/Watt | 18.0+131% | 7.8 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 640 launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the FireStream 9250 launched at $999 and now averages $49. The FireStream 9250 costs 2% less ($1 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.4 (GeForce GT 640) vs 23.8 (FireStream 9250) — the FireStream 9250 offers 1.7% better value. The GeForce GT 640 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2008).
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | FireStream 9250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99-90% | $999 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $49-2% |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.4 | 23.8+2% |
| Codename | GK107 | RV770 |
| Release | June 5 2012 | June 16 2008 |
| Ranking | #837 | #840 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 640 and FireStream 9250
