GeForce GTX 1660 vs GT 220

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 and GeForce GTX 1660, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 220
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.57

GTX 1660 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 5212% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1212186
Place by popularitynot in top-10039
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.20
Power efficiency0.6717.30
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT216TU116
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)14 March 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $219

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores481408
Core clock speed625 MHz1530 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors486 million6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt120 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.840157.1
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPS5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs1688

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 3.0 x16
Length168 mm229 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2001 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s192.1 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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMI1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
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 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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. 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
GTX 1660 30.28
+5212%

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
GTX 1660 11670
+5229%

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
−295%
83
+295%
1440p0−149
4K-0−126

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.812.64
1440pno data4.47
4Kno data8.42

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2267%
71
+2267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1525%
65−70
+1525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2333%
73
+2333%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1833%
58
+1833%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−7600%
75−80
+7600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1280%
69
+1280%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2682%
306
+2682%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1650%
100−110
+1650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−657%
227
+657%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2975%
123
+2975%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−2133%
67
+2133%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1467%
47
+1467%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−7600%
75−80
+7600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1240%
67
+1240%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2509%
287
+2509%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1733%
110
+1733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−540%
60−65
+540%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−613%
214
+613%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1525%
65−70
+1525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1533%
49
+1533%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1233%
40
+1233%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1080%
59
+1080%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−745%
93
+745%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1483%
95
+1483%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−470%
57
+470%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+3.4%
29
−3.4%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−4500%
45−50
+4500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 30−35
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2300%
24
+2300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−3400%
35−40
+3400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−550%
39
+550%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−2133%
67
+2133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−18600%
187
+18600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1667%
53
+1667%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 15

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
26
+1200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 59
+0%
59
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 112
+0%
112
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 42
+0%
42
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 113
+0%
113
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 79
+0%
79
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+0%
37
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 98
+0%
98
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 81
+0%
81
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 34
+0%
34
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Metro Exodus 59
+0%
59
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 67
+0%
67
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 21
+0%
21
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 63
+0%
63
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 17
+0%
17
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10
+0%
10
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50
+0%
50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
+0%
36
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12
+0%
12
+0%

This is how GT 220 and GTX 1660 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1660 is 295% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 3% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1660 is 18600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • GTX 1660 is ahead in 34 tests (49%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 30.28
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 5212.3% 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.


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
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660
GeForce GTX 1660

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.


3.1 776 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5330 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1660 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.