Radeon Pro Vega 20 vs GeForce GT 220
Aggregated performance score
Radeon Pro Vega 20 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 2387% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1171 | 350 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | no data | 14.39 |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | Vega (2017−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Vega Mobile |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) | 15 November 2018 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
| Current price | $121 (1.5x MSRP) | $360 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 220 and Pro Vega 20 have a nearly equal value for money.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 1280 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1283 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 9.840 | 102.6 |
| Floating-point performance | 144 gflops | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 220 and Radeon Pro Vega 20 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 6.6" (16.8 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
Memory
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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | 1480 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | 189.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF + HDA | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon Pro Vega 20 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 2387% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon Pro Vega 20 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 2376% in Passmark.
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
−190%
| 61
+190%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4000%
| 41
+4000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−683%
|
47
+683%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 8−9
−338%
|
35−40
+338%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−533%
|
38
+533%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1567%
|
50
+1567%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−138%
|
18−20
+138%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2100%
|
21−24
+2100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
This is how GT 220 and Pro Vega 20 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 20 is 190% faster than GT 220 in 1080p
- Pro Vega 20 is 4000% faster than GT 220 in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro Vega 20 is 2100% faster than the GT 220.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro Vega 20 surpassed GT 220 in all 25 of our tests.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 0.55 | 13.68 |
| Recency | 12 October 2009 | 15 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 100 Watt |
The Radeon Pro Vega 20 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 Radeon Pro Vega 20 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
