Zotac GeForce GT 640 DDR3 Review: Glacial Gaming & Heavenly HTPC
by Ryan Smith & Ganesh T S on June 20, 2012 12:00 PM ESTPortal 2, Battlefield 3, Starcraft II, Skyrim, & Civ V
Portal 2 continues to be the latest and greatest Source engine game to come out of Valve's offices. While Source continues to be a DX9 engine, and hence is designed to allow games to be playable on a wide range of hardware, Valve has continued to upgrade it over the years to improve its quality, and combined with their choice of style you’d have a hard time telling it’s over 7 years old at this point. From a rendering standpoint Portal 2 isn't particularly geometry heavy, but it does make plenty of use of shaders.
Portal 2 ends up being one of the better games for the GT 640, both on an overall basis and on a competitive basis. Overall we’re able to run Portal 2 at 1680 with maximum quality and with MSAA, and still hit 60fps, marking the first time we’ve been able to use such high settings on this card. At the same time the GT 640 is about as close to the 7750 as it’s ever going to get; it still trails by over 15% but this is a far better showing than earlier with games like DiRT 3. Performance relative to the GT 440 also once again looks good, with the GT 640 improving on the GT 440 by 60%.
Battlefield 3
Its popularity aside, Battlefield 3 may be the most interesting game in our benchmark suite for a single reason: it was the first AAA DX10+ game. Consequently it makes no attempt to shy away from pushing the graphics envelope, and pushing GPUs to their limits at the same time. Even at low settings Battlefield 3 is a handful, making it difficult to run on low-end GPUs.
We ultimately had to iterate through several different settings to find something the GT 640 could handle with BF3. 1680 is right out – even at minimum quality it could only hit 40fps in our test, which in a severe firefight means that framerates will bottom out at around 20fps. Only by finally backing off on the resolution to 1366x768 were we able to hit 60fps. So it’s definitely playable, but 1680 just isn’t going to happen.
Of course it goes without saying that the GT 640 once again gets left in the dust here by its competition. At High quality (our common benchmark for all single-GPU cards) it can’t even surpass the GT 440 due to the lack of memory bandwidth, and at lower settings the 7750 is still 20% ahead. At best you can point to our iGPU results and see that the GT 640 triples the HD 2500’s performance, reflecting the fact that even a slow dGPU is still faster than a slow iGPU.
Starcraft II
Our next game is Starcraft II, Blizzard’s 2010 RTS megahit. Starcraft II is a DX9 game that is designed to run on a wide range of hardware, and given the growth in GPU performance over the years it's often CPU limited before it's GPU limited on higher-end cards.
Starcraft II is another game that NVIDIA tends to do well in, and while it’s still not enough to make the GT 640 competitive with the likes of the 7750 or GTS 450, it’s enough to reduce the gap. The 7750 leads by only 15% here, the smallest lead of the day. Meanwhile the GT 640 improves on the GT 440 by 53% here, once again showcasing the impact of such a large increase in ROPs, shaders, and texture units.
Skyrim
Bethesda's epic sword and magic game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is our RPG of choice for benchmarking. It's altogether a good CPU benchmark thanks to its complex scripting and AI, but it also can end up pushing a large number of fairly complex models and effects at once. This is a DX9 game so it isn't utilizing any advanced DX11 functionality, but it can still be a demanding game.
If we iterated through enough settings I’m sure we’d find something that the GT 640 could hit 60fps on, but thankfully it’s generally playable above 30fps, so 1680 at High quality should be fine for most users. Here it narrowly beats the 6670, but the 7750 and GTS 450 are well ahead, once again reflecting the relatively poor gaming performance of the GT 640.
Civilization V
Our final game, Civilization 5, gives us an interesting look at things that other RTSes cannot match, with a much weaker focus on shading in the game world, and a much greater focus on creating the geometry needed to bring such a world to life. In doing so it uses a slew of DirectX 11 technologies, including tessellation for said geometry, driver command lists for reducing CPU overhead, and compute shaders for on-the-fly texture decompression. And the release of a new expansion pack today should keep Civ V relevant to gamers for some time to come.
With Civilization V the GT 640 starts roughly the same as it started: poorly. The 7750 leads by over 50% at our highest settings, a gap wide enough to make the 7750 more than playable at these settings while the GT 640 struggles. The 56% improvement from the GT 440 means that NVIDIA is still making solid gains compared to the GT 440, but it’s just not enough.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
cjs150 - Thursday, June 21, 2012 - link
"God forbid there be a technical reason for it.... "Intel and Nvidia have had several generations of chip to fix any technical issue and didnt (HD4000 is good enough though). AMD have been pretty close to the correct frame rate for a while.
But it is not enough to have the capability to run at the correct frame rate is you make it too difficult to change the frame rate to the correct setting. That is not a hardware issue just bad design of software.
UltraTech79 - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
Anyone else really disappointed in 4 still being standardized around 24 fps? I thought 60 would be the min standard by now with 120 in higher end displays. 24 is crap. Anyone that has seen a movie recorded at 48+FPS know whats I'm talking about.This is like putting shitty unleaded gas into a super high-tech racecar.
cjs150 - Thursday, June 21, 2012 - link
You do know that Blu-ray is displayed at 23.976 FPS? That looks very good to me.Please do not confuse screen refresh rates with frame rates. Screen refresh runs on most large TVs at between 60 and 120 Hz, anything below 60 tends to look crap. (if you want real crap trying running American TV on an European PAL system - I mean crap in a technical sense not creatively!)
I must admit that having a fps of 23.976 rather than some round number such as 24 (or higher) FPS is rather daft and some new films are coming out with much higher FPS. I have a horrible recollection that the reason for such an odd FPS is very historic - something to do with the length of 35mm film that would be needed per second, the problem is I cannot remember whether that was simply because 35mm film was expensive and it was the minimum to provide smooth movement or whether it goes right back to days when film had a tendency to catch light and then it was the maximum speed you could put a film through a projector without friction causing the film to catch light. No doubt there is an expert on this site who could explain precisely why we ended up with such a silly number as the standard
UltraTech79 - Friday, June 22, 2012 - link
You are confusing things here. I clearly said 120(fps) would need higher end displays (120Hz) I was rounding up 23.976 FPS to 24, give me a break.It looks good /to you/ is wholly irrelevant. Do you realize how many people said "it looks very good to me." Referring to SD when resisting the HD movement? Or how many will say it again referring to 1080p thinking 4k is too much? It's a ridiculous mindset.
My point was that we are upping the resolution, but leaving another very important aspect in the dust that we need to improve. Even audio is moving faster than framerates in movies, and now that most places are switching to digital, the cost to goto the next step has dropped dramatically.
nathanddrews - Friday, June 22, 2012 - link
It was NVIDIA's choice to only implement 4K @ 24Hz (23.xxx) due to limitations of HDMI. If NVIDIA had optimized around DisplayPort, you could then have 4K @ 60Hz.For computer use, anything under 60Hz is unacceptable. For movies, 24Hz has been the standard for a century - all film is 24fps and most movies are still shot on film. In the next decade, there will be more and more films that will use 48, 60, even 120fps. Cameron was cock-blocked by the studio when he wanted to film Avatar at 60fps, but he may get his wish for the sequels. Jackson is currently filming The Hobbit at 48fps. Eventually all will be right with the world.
karasaj - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
If we wanted to use this to compare a 640M or 640M LE to the GT640, is this doable? If it's built on the same card, (both have 384 CUDA cores) can we just reduce the numbers by a rough % of the core clock speed to get rough numbers that the respective cards would put out? I.E. the 640M LE has a clock of 500mhz, the 640M is ~625Mhz. Could we expect ~55% of this for the 640M LE and 67% for the 640M? Assuming DDR3 on both so as not to have that kind of difference.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
It would be fairly easy to test a desktop card at a mobile card's clocks (assuming memory type and functional unit count was equal) but you can't extrapolate performance like that because there's more to performance than clockspeeds. In practice performance shouldn't drop by that much since we're already memory bandwidth bottlenecked with DDR3.jstabb - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
Can you verify if creating a custom resolution breaks 3D (frame packed) blu-ray playback?With my GT430, once a custom resolution has been created for 23/24hz, that custom resolution overrides the 3D frame-packed resolution created when 3D vision is enabled. The driver appeared to have a simple fall through logic. If a custom resolution is defined for the selected resolution/refresh rate it is always used, failing that it will use a 3D resolution if one is defined, failing that it will use the default 2D resolution.
This issue made the custom resolution feature useless to me with the GT430 and pushed me to an AMD solution for their better OOTB refresh rate matching. I'd like to consider this card if the issue has been resolved.
Thanks for the great review!
MrSpadge - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
It consumes about just as much as the HD7750-800, yet performs miserably in comparison. This is an amazing win for AMD, especially comparing GTX680 and HD7970!UltraTech79 - Wednesday, June 20, 2012 - link
This preform about as well as an 8800GTS for twice the price. Or half the preformance of a 460GTX for the same price.These should have been priced at 59.99.