GeForce MX230 vs GT 220

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 with GeForce MX230, including specs and performance data.

GT 220
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.57

MX230 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 733% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1208640
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.6833.02
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGT216GP108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)21 February 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores48256
Core clock speed625 MHz1519 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1582 MHz
Number of transistors486 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt10 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.84025.31
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPS0.81 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1616

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s48.06 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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIF + HDAno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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
GeForce MX230 4.75
+733%

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
GeForce MX230 1834
+737%

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
+5%
20
−5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.81no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−225%
13
+225%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−367%
14
+367%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−182%
30−35
+182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−283%
23
+283%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−300%
16
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−333%
13
+333%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1100%
12
+1100%
Hitman 3 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−182%
30−35
+182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−183%
16−18
+183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−70%
16−18
+70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−50%
6
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−200%
9
+200%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−167%
8−9
+167%
Hitman 3 5−6
−100%
10−11
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−182%
30−35
+182%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−183%
16−18
+183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−50%
45−50
+50%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 4−5
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−200%
9−10
+200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 59
+0%
59
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Battlefield 5 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 53
+0%
53
+0%
Metro Exodus 13
+0%
13
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 7
+0%
7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12
+0%
12
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GT 220 and GeForce MX230 compete in popular games:

  • GT 220 is 5% faster in 1080p

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 11% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX230 is 2900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • GeForce MX230 is ahead in 34 tests (52%)
  • there's a draw in 31 test (47%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 4.75
Recency 12 October 2009 21 February 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 10 Watt

GeForce MX230 has a 733.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 480% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX230 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 MX230 is a notebook one.


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 MX230
GeForce MX230

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.


3.1 756 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 1374 votes

Rate GeForce MX230 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.