NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 1050 and GeForce GT 640 represent two very different eras of NVIDIA’s entry-level lineup. The data shows a clear generational gap, with the GTX 1050 dominating the GT 640 across every shared benchmark. This analysis breaks down the exact performance deltas, architectural shifts, and practical implications of choosing between these two end-of-life cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the GTX 1050 wins all three shared tests, with margins that range from substantial to overwhelming. In Geekbench Metal, the GTX 1050 scores 7823 against the GT 640’s 2086, a delta of 275%. This is not a close contest; the newer card more than triples the older one’s output in Apple’s Metal API. The gap widens further in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1050 posts 15233 versus 3736, a 307.7% advantage. That result indicates the Pascal architecture’s compute throughput is on an entirely different level from Kepler’s.

The closest margin comes in Geekbench Vulkan, but even here the GTX 1050 leads by 136.2%, scoring 8995 against 3809. While Vulkan is the most modern API tested, it still cannot narrow the fundamental hardware gap. For context, the GTX 1050’s average benchmark score sits at 3629, which places it in the 21st percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545, which averages 3594, just 1% behind. The GT 640, meanwhile, averages 3210, putting it in the 20th percentile, with its closest competitor being the Intel Arc Pro B60 at 3182 (0.9% behind). Notice that the GTX 1050’s rivals are older or mobile parts, while the GT 640’s rivals include a modern Intel option—yet the GTX 1050 still finishes ahead of its own peer group by a wider margin than the GT 640 does relative to its own.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the GTX 1050, its Passmark G3D score of 5028 shows strong legacy DirectX performance, while its Passmark G2D score of 457 indicates modest 2D capability. The GT 640 has no Passmark entries in the data, so direct comparison there is impossible. However, the three Geekbench tests that do overlap tell a consistent story: the GTX 1050 is faster by every measure, with the smallest win still exceeding a 2.3x improvement.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is vast, reflecting four years of GPU evolution. The GTX 1050 uses the GP107 chip built on a 14 nm Samsung process, packing 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 25.0M / mm². The GT 640, in contrast, relies on the GK107 chip on TSMC’s 28 nm node, with 1,270 million transistors across a 118 mm² die—a density of just 10.8M / mm². The newer process allows the GTX 1050 to fit nearly three times as many transistors in only slightly more silicon.

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. Both cards have 2 GB of VRAM and a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1050 uses GDDR5 at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), delivering 112.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 640 uses DDR3 at 891 MHz (1782 Mbps effective), yielding only 28.51 GB/s. That is a 4x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 1050, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and higher resolutions. The clock speeds also diverge: the GTX 1050 runs at a base of 1354 MHz with a 1455 MHz boost, while the GT 640 has no listed base or boost clocks, only its memory clock. The GTX 1050’s shading units number 640, compared to 384 on the GT 640, and its 40 TMUs and 32 ROPs dwarf the GT 640’s 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Compute rates follow the same pattern. The GTX 1050 achieves 1.862 TFLOPS FP32, 46.56 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 58.20 GTexel/s texture rate. The GT 640 manages 692.7 GFLOPS FP32, 7.216 GPixel/s, and 28.86 GTexel/s. The pixel rate difference is particularly stark—over 6x—which explains why the GTX 1050 handles modern display resolutions far better. The GTX 1050 also supports FP16 at 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GT 640 has no FP16 capability listed. API support leans newer on the GTX 1050: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_0) on the GT 640, and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 wins everywhere in the shared benchmarks, so the use-case split is less about performance and more about suitability for specific tasks. Starting with compute-heavy applications, the GTX 1050’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 15233 is 307.7% higher than the GT 640’s 3736. This makes the GTX 1050 the clear choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, video encoding, or any OpenCL-based workload. The GT 640’s 3736 score is functional for basic compute but will struggle with anything beyond light tasks.

For gaming, the Vulkan result is most telling. The GTX 1050’s 8995 versus the GT 640’s 3809 (136.2% delta) shows that modern API-based titles will run far smoother on the newer card. The GTX 1050 also has the pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s) to push 1080p gaming, whereas the GT 640’s 7.216 GPixel/s caps it at low resolutions and old titles. The GT 640 does have one advantage: its 65 W TDP versus the GTX 1050’s 75 W, and its single-slot design versus the GTX 1050’s dual-slot. For a low-profile HTPC or a legacy system with tight clearance, the GT 640 is physically easier to install.

In legacy DirectX scenarios, the GTX 1050’s Passmark DirectX 9 score of 83 and DirectX 10 score of 24 show it handles older APIs, while its DirectX 11 score of 38 and DirectX 12 score of 20 cover newer ground. The GT 640 has no such data, but its older Kepler architecture and DDR3 memory suggest it would trail in every DirectX tier. The GTX 1050’s Geekbench Metal score of 7823 versus 2086 indicates it is also the better option for macOS-based workloads, despite being a PC-oriented card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The GTX 1050 averages 3629, while the GT 640 averages 3210. The GTX 1050 also ranks in the 21st percentile of all GPUs versus the GT 640’s 20th percentile.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two cards in shared tests?

A: The biggest delta is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 1050 leads by 307.7%, scoring 15233 against the GT 640’s 3736.

Q: Are both cards the same length?

A: Yes, both are 145 mm (5.7 inches) long. The GTX 1050 is dual-slot with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), while the GT 640 is single-slot with no listed height.

Q: Do both cards require a power connector?

A: No, neither card uses power connectors. Both have a suggested PSU of 250 W, though the GTX 1050 has a 75 W TDP versus the GT 640’s 65 W.

Q: Which card supports newer display outputs?

A: The GTX 1050 offers HDMI 2.0 and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GT 640 has HDMI 1.4a and DisplayPort 1.2. Both include one DVI port.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 1050 delivers 112.1 GB/s using GDDR5, while the GT 640 provides 28.51 GB/s using DDR3—a nearly 4x advantage for the GTX 1050.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided. The GTX 1050 wins every shared benchmark, with deltas ranging from 136.2% to 307.7%. Its architectural advantages—14 nm versus 28 nm, 3,300 million versus 1,270 million transistors, GDDR5 versus DDR3, and 1.862 TFLOPS versus 692.7 GFLOPS—translate directly into real-world performance that the GT 640 cannot match. The GT 640’s only technical wins are its lower 65 W TDP and single-slot form factor, which matter only in constrained chassis.

For anyone building a system today, the GTX 1050 is the only rational choice if performance is the goal. It offers 2 GB of VRAM, modern API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4), and a pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s that can handle 1080p gaming. The GT 640, with its 7.216 GPixel/s and 28.51 GB/s bandwidth, is limited to basic desktop use or legacy software that predates modern APIs. The GT 640’s launch MSRP was 99 USD, and the GTX 1050’s was 109 USD—a mere 10 USD difference for a card that is over 3x faster in OpenCL. The GTX 1050 is the superior product by every measurable metric, and the GT 640 should only be considered for systems where its single-slot, lower-power profile is an absolute requirement.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 | NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Pascal | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm (Samsung) | 28 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1354 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1455 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 891 MHz (1782 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.1 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 384 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.56 GPixel/s | 7.216 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 58.20 GTexel/s | 28.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.862 TFLOPS | 692.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64) | Not listed |

| TDP | 75 W | 65 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-10-24 | 2012-06-04 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 900 | GeForce 500 |

| Successor | GeForce 20 | GeForce 700 |