Nvidia GeForce GT 640 Review: Cramming Kepler Into GK107

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would this card be considered an upgrade to my 460SE? Or should I wait to see if they make a GDDR5 variant of the card?
 
[citation][nom]G0rd0[/nom]One more vote for DDR5 and a 2 GB version at that. Combine that with the power savings and low heat, and Nvidia may actually have a great workhorse card for mini systems.[/citation]

GDDR5 and DDR5 are not the same.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]What does the 7770 have to do with you? Your GTX 570 is a lot faster than the 7770, so the 7770 would be a downgrade for you. Theoretically, you could sell your GTX 570 and get a Radeon 7870 or go up to a GTX 670 and either of those would be an upgrade, but the 7770 hardly seems relevant for you unless you were considering 7770 2GB Crossfire which would beat the GTX 570 substantially, but would be a dual GPU configuration.[/citation]It is for the 9800GT upgrade for my secondary PC. going from 9800GT to 7770 OC is a significant upgrade. I hate to jump to AMD since I got 3 of my PCs are Nvidia cards. But since Nvidia is testing my patience now, I think I would jump ship if I lost my patience.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]It is for the 9800GT upgrade for my secondary PC. going from 9800GT to 7770 OC is a significant upgrade. I hate to jump to AMD since I got 3 of my PCs are Nvidia cards. But since Nvidia is testing my patience now, I think I would jump ship if I lost my patience.[/citation]

Ahh, that makes sense. TBH, I'm not expecting Nvidia to truly compete with the 7750 and 7770 any time soon, if at all. Nvidia doesn't really focus on the lower end graphics markets as much as AMD does.
 

And that's a shame, because it explains why these low-end cards aren't priced down around $75, where they'd be a much more "comfortable" purchase.
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]And that's a shame, because it explains why these low-end cards aren't priced down around $75, where they'd be a much more "comfortable" purchase.[/citation]They are even ignoring the mid end right now. Look how much GTX670 cost. I am not expecting they come out something to complete against 7800 anytime soon.
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]They are even ignoring the mid end right now. Look how much GTX670 cost. I am not expecting they come out something to complete against 7800 anytime soon.[/citation]

True, but at least the GTX 400/500 cards have a semi-decent presence in the mid-end. Nvidia has nothing worth the money at all in the very low end.
 
[citation][nom]yobobjm[/nom]Clearly you guys don't get the point of this card, this is the fastest low profile card so that means you can shove it in microscopic cases that only have one expansion slot. And previously the fastest was the gt 440 but this clearly out-preforms it, so I would say this is a win.[/citation]

Actually, there are low profile 7750s... So no, it's not the fastest low profile card. Heck, isn't AMD making a reference low profile 7850, or is that just going to be a single slot 7850?
 
[citation][nom]yobobjm[/nom]Clearly you guys don't get the point of this card, this is the fastest low profile card so that means you can shove it in microscopic cases that only have one expansion slot. And previously the fastest was the gt 440 but this clearly out-preforms it, so I would say this is a win.[/citation]
lol. look at that radiator heatsink... you need two slots for it. It should be half the height to call it low profile
 
[citation][nom]SuperVeloce[/nom]lol. look at that radiator heatsink... you need two slots for it. It should be half the height to call it low profile[/citation]

This GT 640 DDR3 is a half height card and it is a low-profile card. It would not need two expansion slots externally, although it does look like it would internally (might be a problem for Mini ITX, but Micro ATX should be fine).
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]It appears to trade blows with the HD6670, and there are numerous low-profile versions of that. The problem again gets back to price. This card is $30 too expensive.[/citation]
You can find an HD6670 for as low as $60...whereas the cheapest GT640 you'll find is $100. The more common price for the GT640 is $110 though making it $40-$50 more expensive than the HD6670 but putting it's price on par with the $110 retail price of the HD7750.

While you can get single-slot GT640's in retail, the majority currently available are dual slot, full width cards.
 
[citation][nom]sykozis[/nom]You can find an HD6670 for as low as $60...[/citation]
Those are DDR3 versions; I was referring only to the GDDR5 ones, specifically the HIS and Sapphire options that are low-profile. Sapphire's is only one slot wide, and the HIS card clearly needs at least another half-slot width internally.
 
Why would anyone want this card? It consumes close to the same amount of electricity of the HD 7750 but gets roughly half the FPS. Who cares how it scales in SLI, the 7750 would be better choice even if you SLI'd it.
 
[citation][nom]mmstick[/nom]Why would anyone want this card? It consumes close to the same amount of electricity of the HD 7750 but gets roughly half the FPS. Who cares how it scales in SLI, the 7750 would be better choice even if you SLI'd it.[/citation]

AMD does Crossfire, not SLI. Yes, there is a difference. The 7750 also has roughly 100% scaling. This GT 640 uses a good deal less power than the 7750. I'd probably get a 7750 over a GT 640 every time, but you could at least be accurate about its features.
 
Does the "8800 GTS 512 MB" really have better performance than this?
It has according to June 2012 Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart...

I would really like to see some retests using DX10 cards on new DX11 games...
(and WHY is Crysis 2 tested in DX9???)
 
[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]Does the "8800 GTS 512 MB" really have better performance than this?It has according to June 2012 Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart...I would really like to see some retests using DX10 cards on new DX11 games...(and WHY is Crysis 2 tested in DX9???)[/citation]

The 8800 GTS probably has slightly higher performance, but I wouldn't call it a noticeable victory. It would also be at a huge cost of power consumption anyway, although the up-front cost might make up for that. However, it might not. Either way, neither the 8800GTS nor the GT 640 DDR3 seem to be good purchases at this time.

I'd also be interested in retesting of older cards in current games with current drivers. However, GT 640 DDR3 versus 8800GTS 512MB, the 512MB might be a limiting factor in modern games, so the GT 640 DDR3 might be able to pull off a win over the much older 8800 GTS 512MB anyway.
 
[citation][nom]regor245[/nom]8800GT > 9800GT > GT 545 > GT 640Rebranding? Just a die shrink with a new name? Let me know.[/citation]

The GT 545 is a Fermi based card (not a rebrand) and the GT 640 is a Kepler based card (also not a rebrand). Yes, re-branding is a problem, but it isn't what happened. There is a Fermi GT 640 model, but that's not what was tested here.
 
WOW this GT 640 is like the worst GPU ever and cost around $110...An old $65 Radeon HD 6570 is a lot better, correction my old cellphone is even better than this GT640
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom