Radeon R5 (Kaveri) vs GeForce GT 220
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 220 with Radeon R5 (Kaveri), including specs and performance data.
R5 (Kaveri) outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 111% 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 | 1262 | 1103 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.70 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 1.1 (2014) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Kaveri |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 4 June 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 514 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 626 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 2410 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 9.840 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1277 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF + HDA | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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
−90.5%
| 40−45
+90.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.81 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−58.8%
|
27−30
+58.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−45.5%
|
16−18
+45.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−18.5%
|
30−35
+18.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−100%
|
12−14
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 220 and R5 (Kaveri) compete in popular games:
- R5 (Kaveri) is 90% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Kaveri) is 250% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Kaveri) performs better in 23 tests (61%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.53 | 1.12 |
| Recency | 12 October 2009 | 4 June 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
R5 (Kaveri) has a 111.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 (Kaveri) 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 R5 (Kaveri) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
