Quadro FX 1700 vs GeForce GT 220

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 with Quadro FX 1700, including specs and performance data.

GT 220
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.57
+21.3%

GT 220 outperforms FX 1700 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12121237
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.670.77
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT216G84
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)12 September 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $699

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 220 and FX 1700 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 cores4832
Core clock speed625 MHz460 MHz
Number of transistors486 million289 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt42 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.8407.360
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPS0.05888 TFLOPS
ROPs88
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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mm168 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot1-slot
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 typeGDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s25.6 GB/s

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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMI2x DVI, 1x S-Video
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)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL3.13.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.1

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
+21.3%
FX 1700 0.47

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
+21%
FX 1700 181

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
+31.3%
16−18
−31.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.8143.69

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+25%
24−27
−25%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GT 220 and FX 1700 compete in popular games:

  • GT 220 is 31% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 0.47
Recency 12 October 2009 12 September 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 42 Watt

GT 220 has a 21.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

FX 1700, on the other hand, has 38.1% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 220 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1700 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 1700 is a workstation 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 Quadro FX 1700
Quadro FX 1700

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.


3.1 774 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 24 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1700 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.