GeForce GT 220 vs FirePro M5800
Aggregated performance score
FirePro M5800 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 149% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 969 | 1174 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Madison | GT216 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
| Current price | $60 | $121 (1.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 400 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 13.00 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point performance | 520.0 gflops | 144 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on FirePro M5800 and GeForce GT 220 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 6.6" (16.8 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
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 | DDR3, GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 25.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 21
+0%
| 21
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how ATI M5800 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 0% faster than ATI M5800 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI M5800 is 100% faster than the GT 220.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI M5800 is ahead in 19 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.37 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 1 March 2010 | 12 October 2009 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 58 Watt |
The FirePro M5800 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M5800 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
