GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
R7 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 240% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 985 | 1304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.12 | 0.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2 (2016) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (10 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 512 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.3 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 Connectors | no data | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 HD | 14 | 21
+50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+34.5%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+124%
|
16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 16
+45.5%
|
10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5
+400%
|
1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+34.5%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 14
+27.3%
|
10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+34.5%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7 |
| Valorant | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16 |
| Valorant | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3 |
This is how R7 (Bristol Ridge) and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 50% 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 R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R7 (Bristol Ridge) surpassed GT 220 in all 30 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.80 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 12 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 58 Watt |
R7 (Bristol Ridge) has a 240% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 30% more advanced lithography process, and 79% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
