GeForce 720A vs GT 220
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 220 with GeForce 720A, including specs and performance data.
720A outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 160% 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 | 1285 | 1048 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.70 | 3.22 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | GF117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) | 1 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 938 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 15.01 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1306 TFLOPS | 0.1801 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 128 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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | 16 GB/s |
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 | VGADVIHDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF + HDA | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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.
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 | 21
−138%
| 50−55
+138%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.81 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−135%
|
40−45
+135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−159%
|
70−75
+159%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−150%
|
35−40
+150%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
This is how GT 220 and GeForce 720A compete in popular games:
- GeForce 720A is 138% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 1.38 |
| Recency | 12 October 2009 | 1 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 33 Watt |
GeForce 720A has a 160% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 76% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 720A is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 720A is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
