Radeon R5 A240 vs GeForce GT 220

Place in performance ranking	1173	934
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code name	GT216	Oland
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	12 October 2009 (14 years ago)	2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79.99	no data
Current price	$121 (1.5x MSRP)	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

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	320
CUDA cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	625 MHz	1030 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	780 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	950 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	9.840	15.60
Floating-point performance	144 gflops	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	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	6.6" (16.8 cm)	168 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	1800 MBps
Memory bandwidth	25.3 GB/s	28.8 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 Connectors	VGADVIHDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA
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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.5 (5.1)
OpenGL	3.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1 (1.2)
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.170
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.

GT 220 0.56

R5 A240 1.49
+166%

Radeon R5 A240 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 166% based on our aggregate 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%

GT 220 217

R5 A240 576
+165%

Radeon R5 A240 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 165% 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

−162%

55−60
+162%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−133%

7−8
+133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Hitman 3	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%