GeForce GT 220 vs 9700M GTS
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9700M GTS with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
9700M GTS outperforms GT 220 by a significant 25% 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 | 1218 | 1261 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.84 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | G94 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 July 2008 (17 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 530 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 12.72 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1272 TFLOPS | 0.1277 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 180 | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 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 outputs | 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 24−27
+14.3%
| 21
−14.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
+11.8%
|
16−18
−11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how 9700M GTS and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- 9700M GTS is 14% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the 9700M GTS is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 9700M GTS performs better in 13 tests (42%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (58%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.66 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 29 July 2008 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 58 Watt |
9700M GTS has a 24.5% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 220, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 3.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 9700M GTS is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9700M GTS 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.
