Arc A750 vs GeForce GT 220

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 and Arc A750, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 220
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.57

Arc A750 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 5360% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1210176
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.44
Power efficiency0.699.64
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGT216DG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $289

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 220 and Arc A750 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores483584
Core clock speed625 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2400 MHz
Number of transistors486 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt225 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.840537.6
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs8112
TMUs16224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s512.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMI1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIF + HDAno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 220 0.57
Arc A750 31.12
+5360%

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 220 219
Arc A750 12005
+5382%

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 HD21
−424%
110
+424%
1440p1−2
−5800%
59
+5800%
4K0−136

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.812.63
1440p79.994.90
4Kno data8.03

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5233%
160−170
+5233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1450%
62
+1450%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2833%
85−90
+2833%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5233%
160−170
+5233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−10700%
100−110
+10700%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1518%
170−180
+1518%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2650%
160−170
+2650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−350%
130−140
+350%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2550%
106
+2550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2833%
85−90
+2833%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5233%
160−170
+5233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−10700%
100−110
+10700%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1518%
170−180
+1518%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−3883%
239
+3883%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−810%
90−95
+810%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−350%
130−140
+350%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1025%
45
+1025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2833%
85−90
+2833%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−5233%
160−170
+5233%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1780%
90−95
+1780%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−927%
113
+927%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−3217%
199
+3217%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−590%
69
+590%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−110%
63
+110%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−6600%
65−70
+6600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 38
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4900%
50−55
+4900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−5000%
50−55
+5000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−867%
55−60
+867%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−2967%
92
+2967%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−20300%
200−210
+20300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−2433%
75−80
+2433%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2700%
28
+2700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 30

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 90
+0%
90
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 76
+0%
76
+0%
Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Metro Exodus 143
+0%
143
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 69
+0%
69
+0%
Far Cry 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 54
+0%
54
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 86
+0%
86
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 145
+0%
145
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 57
+0%
57
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 80
+0%
80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 69
+0%
69
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 61
+0%
61
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 84
+0%
84
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30
+0%
30
+0%

This is how GT 220 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 424% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 5800% faster in 1440p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A750 is 20300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is ahead in 30 tests (47%)
  • there's a draw in 34 tests (53%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 31.12
Recency 12 October 2009 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 225 Watt

GT 220 has 287.9% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 5359.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.1 757 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 809 votes

Rate Arc A750 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.