Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs GeForce GT 220

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1212not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.67no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Gen. 3 (2005)
GPU code nameGT216GMA 950
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)1 March 2005 (19 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 cores484
Core clock speed625 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data250 MHz
Number of transistors486 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt7 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.840no data
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no data

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 x16no data
Length168 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed790 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/sno data
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 data
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)no data
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 October 2009 1 March 2005
Chip lithography 40 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 7 Watt

GT 220 has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950, on the other hand, has 728.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 220 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop card while Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 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
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

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.


3.1 769 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 77 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 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.