GeForce GT 640 vs GeForce GTX 295
GeForce GT 640
Popular choices:
GeForce GTX 295
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 GeForce GTX 295 is on rank 301, 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 GeForce GTX 295
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GTX 295 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.5% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GT 640 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2009 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+128.6%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 295 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 295 holds the technical lead. Priced at $50 (vs $50), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 2.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 GeForce GTX 295
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.
GeForce GTX 295
The GeForce GTX 295 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in January 8 2009. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 576 MHz. It has 480 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 289W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,198 points. Launch price was $500.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 640 scores 1,169 and the GeForce GTX 295 reaches 1,198 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 640 is built on Kepler while the GeForce GTX 295 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 640) vs 480 (GeForce GTX 295). Raw compute: 0.6927 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 640) vs 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,169 | 1,198+2% |
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 480 ×2+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6927 TFLOPS+16% | 0.5962 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 | 28 ×2+75% |
| TMUs | 32 | 80 ×2+150% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+14% | 224 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | FSR 3 (Compatible) |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce GT 640 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce GTX 295 has 2 GB. The GeForce GT 640 offers 128.6% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (GeForce GT 640) vs 224 KB (GeForce GTX 295) — the GeForce GT 640 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+129% | 1.75 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+14% | 224 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce GT 640) vs 11.1 (10_0) (GeForce GTX 295). OpenGL: 4.5 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5+36% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 3+50% | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (GeForce GT 640) vs PureVideo HD VP2 (GeForce GTX 295). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs PureVideo HD VP2. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 640) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GTX 295).
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | NVENC 1.0 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | PureVideo HD VP2 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 640 draws 65W versus the GeForce GTX 295's 289W — a 126.6% difference. The GeForce GT 640 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GT 640) vs 680W (GeForce GTX 295). Power connectors: None vs 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin. Card length: 145mm vs 267mm, occupying 1 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 60°C vs 95°C.
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 65W-78% | 289W |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-56% | 680W |
| Power Connector | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| Length | 145mm | 267mm |
| Height | 111mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1-50% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C-37% | 95°C |
| Perf/Watt | 18.0+339% | 4.1 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 640 launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the GeForce GTX 295 launched at $499 and now averages $50. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 23.4 (GeForce GT 640) vs 24.0 (GeForce GTX 295) — the GeForce GTX 295 offers 2.6% better value. The GeForce GT 640 is the newer GPU (2012 vs 2009).
| Feature | GeForce GT 640 | GeForce GTX 295 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99-80% | $499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $50 |
| Performance per Dollar | 23.4 | 24.0+3% |
| Codename | GK107 | GT200B |
| Release | June 5 2012 | January 8 2009 |
| Ranking | #837 | #816 |
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 GeForce GTX 295
