Quadro T500 Mobile vs GeForce GT 220
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 220 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T500 Mobile outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 1498% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 1208 | 477 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 0.68 | 34.98 |
Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
GPU code name | GT216 | TU117 |
Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Release date | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (3 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 | 896 |
Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1365 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 1695 MHz |
Number of transistors | 486 million | 4,700 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 18 Watt |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 9.840 | 94.92 |
Floating-point processing power | 0.1277 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
ROPs | 8 | 32 |
TMUs | 16 | 56 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 1250 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | 80 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 Connectors | VGADVIHDMI | No outputs |
Multi monitor support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | - |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF + HDA | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.6 |
OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
CUDA | + | 7.5 |
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
−71.4%
| 36
+71.4%
|
1440p | 0−1 | 15 |
4K | 1−2
−1600%
| 17
+1600%
|
Cost per frame, $
1080p | 3.81 | no data |
4K | 79.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−355%
|
50−55
+355%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−240%
|
16−18
+240%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−355%
|
50−55
+355%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−180%
|
28
+180%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
−450%
|
21−24
+450%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
−1400%
|
75−80
+1400%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−1445%
|
170−180
+1445%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−90%
|
19
+90%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−33
−100%
|
60−65
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 9−10 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
−5600%
|
55−60
+5600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 4−5 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GT 220 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 71% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 1600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the T500 Mobile is 5600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is ahead in 26 tests (39%)
- there's a draw in 40 tests (61%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 0.57 | 9.11 |
Recency | 12 October 2009 | 2 December 2020 |
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 18 Watt |
T500 Mobile has a 1498.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 222.2% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T500 Mobile 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 Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.