Radeon Pro 580 vs GeForce GT 220
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 220 with Radeon Pro 580, including specs and performance data.
Pro 580 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 3398% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1283 | 327 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.70 | 9.50 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G94 | Polaris 20 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 5 June 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 505 million | 5,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 150 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 14.40 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.144 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 576 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 2 MB |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | 217.0 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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
−3233%
| 700−750
+3233%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.81 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3150%
|
130−140
+3150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3275%
|
270−280
+3275%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3233%
|
900−950
+3233%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−3135%
|
550−600
+3135%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−3082%
|
350−400
+3082%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3150%
|
130−140
+3150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3275%
|
270−280
+3275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3233%
|
900−950
+3233%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−3082%
|
350−400
+3082%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3150%
|
130−140
+3150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−3275%
|
270−280
+3275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−3300%
|
170−180
+3300%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−3233%
|
900−950
+3233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−3233%
|
200−210
+3233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−3114%
|
450−500
+3114%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−3233%
|
100−105
+3233%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3150%
|
65−70
+3150%
|
This is how GT 220 and Pro 580 compete in popular games:
- Pro 580 is 3233% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 18.54 |
| Recency | 26 January 2010 | 5 June 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 150 Watt |
GT 220 has 158.6% lower power consumption.
Pro 580, on the other hand, has a 3398.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 580 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro 580 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
