Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs vs GeForce GT 220
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 220 with Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs, including specs and performance data.
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 1228% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1214 | 530 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
Power efficiency | 0.68 | 18.61 |
Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022) |
GPU code name | GT216 | Tiger Lake Xe |
Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 15 August 2020 (4 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 80 |
Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 400 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1350 MHz |
Number of transistors | 486 million | no data |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 28 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 9.840 | no data |
Floating-point processing power | 0.1277 TFLOPS | no data |
ROPs | 8 | no data |
TMUs | 16 | no 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 support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
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 | no data |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | no data |
Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | VGADVIHDMI | no data |
Multi monitor support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | - |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF + HDA | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Quick Sync | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12_1 |
Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
OpenGL | 3.1 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
Vulkan | N/A | - |
CUDA | + | - |
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
+10.5%
| 19
−10.5%
|
1440p | 0−1 | 10 |
4K | 1−2
−1400%
| 15
+1400%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 3.81 | no data |
4K | 79.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
11
+22.2%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−400%
|
30
+400%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−320%
|
21−24
+320%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10
+11.1%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5
+150%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−271%
|
26
+271%
|
Fortnite | 0−1 | 45−50 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−300%
|
24
+300%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−20%
|
6
+20%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−360%
|
21−24
+360%
|
World of Tanks | 16−18
−576%
|
110−120
+576%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+80%
|
5
−80%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4
+100%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−371%
|
30−35
+371%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−233%
|
20
+233%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
1440p
High Preset
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
World of Tanks | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−400%
|
10
+400%
|
Valorant | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
4K
High Preset
Dota 2 | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16
+6.7%
|
Valorant | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
Elden Ring | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Valorant | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
Valorant | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Dota 2 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how GT 220 and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 11% faster in 1080p
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 1400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 80% faster.
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is 5400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is ahead in 31 test (51%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.57 | 7.57 |
Recency | 12 October 2009 | 15 August 2020 |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 28 Watt |
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs has a 1228.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 107.1% lower power consumption.
The Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs 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 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.