GeForce GT 415M vs GT 220

Place in the ranking	1222	1169
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.67	4.24
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GT216	GF108
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	625 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	12 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	9.840	4.000
Floating-point processing power	0.1277 TFLOPS	0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

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	no data	medium sized
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

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	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.3 GB/s	25.6 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 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 compatibility

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	+	+

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.

GT 220 0.57

GT 415M 0.74
+29.8%

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

GT 415M 286
+30.6%

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

−28.6%

27−30
+28.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.81

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Valorant	27−30 −3.6%	27−30 +3.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	16−18 −17.6%	20−22 +17.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Valorant	27−30 −3.6%	27−30 +3.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	10−12 −18.2%	12−14 +18.2%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Valorant	27−30 −3.6%	27−30 +3.6%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	1−2
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2

0−1

This is how GT 220 and GT 415M compete in popular games:

GT 415M is 29% 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 GT 415M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 415M is ahead in 14 tests (40%)
there's a draw in 21 test (60%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.57	0.74
Recency	12 October 2009	3 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	12 Watt

GT 220 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 415M, on the other hand, has a 29.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, and 383.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 415M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 415M is a notebook one.

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.

GeForce GT 220

GeForce GT 415M

Other comparisons

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

Mobility Radeon 9600

Mobility Radeon X1800

Iris Plus Graphics G7 (Ice Lake 64 EU)

HD 5850

Community ratings

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

3.1 810 votes

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

2.7 26 votes

Rate GeForce GT 415M on a scale of 1 to 5:

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 220 or GeForce GT 415M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.