GeForce GTX 1660 vs GT 220
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 220 and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 1660 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 5221% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1224 | 196 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 44 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 47.06 |
| Power efficiency | 0.67 | 17.33 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | TU116 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 14 March 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | $219 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GT 220 and GTX 1660 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 cores | 48 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1530 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1785 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 6,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 9.840 | 157.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1277 TFLOPS | 5.027 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 48 |
| TMUs | 16 | 88 |
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 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 229 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 2001 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | 192.1 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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 | 21
−310%
| 86
+310%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 52 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 29 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.81
−49.6%
| 2.55
+49.6%
|
| 1440p | no data | 4.21 |
| 4K | no data | 7.55 |
- GTX 1660 has 50% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−5450%
|
111
+5450%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−929%
|
72
+929%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3450%
|
71
+3450%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−4050%
|
83
+4050%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−700%
|
56
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2800%
|
58
+2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3200%
|
132
+3200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1500%
|
110−120
+1500%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−993%
|
306
+993%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−2350%
|
49
+2350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−586%
|
48
+586%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1494%
|
270−280
+1494%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2250%
|
47
+2250%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1891%
|
219
+1891%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2975%
|
123
+2975%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 57 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1500%
|
110−120
+1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−2450%
|
102
+2450%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−925%
|
287
+925%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−514%
|
43
+514%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−1691%
|
197
+1691%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2350%
|
98
+2350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1500%
|
110−120
+1500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1325%
|
57
+1325%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−311%
|
115
+311%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−19600%
|
190−200
+19600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−4200%
|
129
+4200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−7500%
|
76
+7500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4800%
|
45−50
+4800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−6900%
|
70−75
+6900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−227%
|
49
+227%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−4067%
|
125
+4067%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30
+2900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1500%
|
30−35
+1500%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1550%
|
30−35
+1550%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+0%
|
86
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 226
+0%
|
226
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
This is how GT 220 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is 310% 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 GTX 1660 is 19600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1660 is ahead in 35 tests (55%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.57 | 30.33 |
| Recency | 12 October 2009 | 14 March 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 120 Watt |
GT 220 has 106.9% lower power consumption.
GTX 1660, on the other hand, has a 5221.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1660 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
