GeForce GT 640M vs Radeon HD 8570

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 640M

2012Core: Up to 625 MHzBoost: 645 MHz
Similar parts
·······
VS
AMD

Radeon HD 8570

2012Core: 1000 MHz
Similar parts
·······

GeForce GT 640M vs Radeon HD 8570 Performance Spectrum

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.

GeForce GT 640M vs Radeon HD 8570 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GT 640M vs Radeon HD 8570: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GT 640M

2012

Why buy it

  • Draws 32W instead of 200W, a 168W reduction.

Trade-offs

  • Lower average FPS than Radeon HD 8570 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • 2012 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
  • Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 9.4 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $100 MSRP).

Radeon HD 8570

2012

Why buy it

  • 130.7% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
  • Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.4 vs 0 G3D/$ ($100 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

  • 2012 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
  • 525% higher power demand at 200W vs 32W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Radeon HD 8570 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 130.7% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data and by 4.1% in PassMark G3D (944 vs 907), so the answer here is pretty clean.
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
GeForce GT 640M is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.
Which GPU is the better buy today?
Radeon HD 8570 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon HD 8570 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce GT 640M has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GT 640M vs Radeon HD 8570 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 640M

The GeForce GT 640M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 22 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from Up to 625 MHz to 645 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 32W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 907 points.

AMD

Radeon HD 8570

The Radeon HD 8570 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 5 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 200W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 944 points. Launch price was $349.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GT 640M scores 907 and the Radeon HD 8570 reaches 944 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 640M is built on Kepler while the Radeon HD 8570 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 640M) vs 1,280 (Radeon HD 8570). Raw compute: 0.48 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 640M) vs 2.56 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 8570).

FeatureGeForce GT 640MRadeon HD 8570
G3D Mark Score
907
944+4%
Architecture
Kepler
GCN 1.0
Process Node
28 nm
28 nm
Shading Units
384
1280+233%
Compute (TFLOPS)
0.48 TFLOPS
2.56 TFLOPS+433%
ROPs
16
32+100%
TMUs
32
80+150%
L1 Cache
32 KB
320 KB+900%
L2 Cache
256 KB
512 KB+100%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GT 640M gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon HD 8570 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

FeatureGeForce GT 640MRadeon HD 8570
Upscaling Tech
Upscaling support
FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation
Not Supported
Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
NVIDIA Reflex
AMD Anti-Lag
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 2 GB of GDDR5. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce GT 640M and 128-bit on the Radeon HD 8570. L2 Cache: 256 KB (GeForce GT 640M) vs 512 KB (Radeon HD 8570) — the Radeon HD 8570 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GT 640MRadeon HD 8570
VRAM Capacity
2 GB
2 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth
Unknown
Unknown
Bus Width
128-bit
128-bit
L2 Cache
256 KB
512 KB+100%
🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce GT 640M) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon HD 8570). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.0. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.

FeatureGeForce GT 640MRadeon HD 8570
DirectX
11.0
12 (11_1)+9%
Vulkan
1.1+10%
1.0
OpenGL
4.5+5%
4.3
Max Displays
1
2+100%
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC 1.0 (GeForce GT 640M) vs No (Radeon HD 8570). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs UVD 3. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 640M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,MVC (Radeon HD 8570).

FeatureGeForce GT 640MRadeon HD 8570
Encoder
NVENC 1.0
No
Decoder
PureVideo HD VP5
UVD 3
Codecs
MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP
H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,MVC
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 640M draws 32W versus the Radeon HD 8570's 200W — a 144.8% difference. The GeForce GT 640M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 640M) vs 300W (Radeon HD 8570). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.

FeatureGeForce GT 640MRadeon HD 8570
TDP
32W-84%
200W
Recommended PSU
350W
300W-14%
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
1x 6-pin
Length
0mm
Height
0mm
Slots
0-100%
1
Temp (Load)
70°C
Perf/Watt
28.3+502%
4.7