Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs GeForce GT 220M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
9600M GS 9600M GT 9600M GT Mac Edition 9650M GT G110M GT 120M GT 120M Mac Edition GT 130M GT 220M GT 240M LE GT 320M
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Pro 450 Pro 460 Pro 555 Pro 555X Pro 560 Pro 560X Pro 570 Pro 570X Pro 575 Pro 580 Pro 580X Pro WX 3200

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220M with Radeon Pro WX 3200, including specs and performance data.

GT 220M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.54

Pro 3200 outperforms 220M by an impressive 90% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GT 220M GT 220M
Pro WX 3200 Pro WX 3200

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1300679
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.31
Power efficiency2.996.39
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameG96CPolaris 23
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date15 June 2009 (17 years ago)2 July 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores32640
Core clock speed500 MHz1082 MHz
Number of transistors314 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate8.00034.62
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1632
L1 Cacheno data160 KB
L2 Cache32 KB512 KB

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno dataMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s64 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.1-

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

GT 220M 0.54
Pro WX 3200 5.36
+89.9%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 220M 227
Samples: 174
Pro WX 3200 2235
+89.8%
Samples: 55

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 220M 1378
Pro WX 3200 12538
+89%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD1−2
−94.7%
19
+94.7%
4K0−18

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data10.47
4Kno data24.88

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 2−3
−84.6%
12−14
+84.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−90.9%
10−12
+90.9%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 2−3
−84.6%
12−14
+84.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−90.9%
10−12
+90.9%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−84%
24−27
+84%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−60%
20−22
+60%
Valorant 27−30
−54.7%
60−65
+54.7%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 2−3
−84.6%
12−14
+84.6%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−81.3%
90−95
+81.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−90.9%
10−12
+90.9%
Dota 2 10−12
−77.6%
49
+77.6%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−84%
24−27
+84%
Metro Exodus 0−1 10
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−60%
20−22
+60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−60%
15
+60%
Valorant 27−30
−54.7%
60−65
+54.7%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−90.9%
10−12
+90.9%
Dota 2 10−12
−68.6%
35
+68.6%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−84%
24−27
+84%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−60%
20−22
+60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−40%
10
+40%
Valorant 27−30
−54.7%
60−65
+54.7%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−80%
10−11
+80%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−95.1%
40−45
+95.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−83.8%
35−40
+83.8%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−92.3%
12−14
+92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−85.7%
7−8
+85.7%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 10−11

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Valorant 6−7
−73.9%
21−24
+73.9%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−60%
5−6
+60%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−60%
5−6
+60%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 20
+0%
20
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 17
+0%
17
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5
+0%
5
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how GT 220M and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 3200 is 95% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 3200 is 95% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro WX 3200 performs better in 30 tests (53%)
  • there's a draw in 27 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.54 5.36
Recency 15 June 2009 2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 65 Watt

GT 220M has 78% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 90% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 88% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 220M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro WX 3200 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GT 220M GeForce GT 220M
vs
HD Graphics 2000 HD Graphics 2000
Pro WX 3200 Radeon Pro WX 3200
vs
Quadro M600M Quadro M600M
GT 220M GeForce GT 220M
vs
HD Graphics 3000 HD Graphics 3000
FX 1500M Quadro FX 1500M
vs
RX 6850 XT RX 6850 XT
9600M GT GeForce 9600M GT
vs
ATI Mobility HD 5450 Radeon HD 5450
9600M GT GeForce 9600M GT
vs
GeForce 315M GeForce 315M
9600M GT GeForce 9600M GT
vs
Pro Vega 20 Pro Vega 20
GT 220M GeForce GT 220M
vs
GeForce 800A GeForce 800A
GT 220M GeForce GT 220M
vs
Graphics 3-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) 3 Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
FX 770M Quadro FX 770M
vs
GeForce4 MX 4000 MX 4000
GT 120M GeForce GT 120M
vs
GeForce 210 GeForce 210
GT 120M GeForce GT 120M
vs
9400 GT GeForce 9400 GT
GT 120M GeForce GT 120M
vs
FX 5100 FX 5100

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.1 104 votes

Rate GeForce GT 220M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 112 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 3200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 220M or Radeon Pro WX 3200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.