Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB vs GeForce GT 220

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 and Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 220
2009, $80
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.53

9060 XT 16 GB outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 8943% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking127575
Place by popularitynot in top-10053
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data82.07
Power efficiency0.7023.01
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 4.0 (2025)
GPU code nameGT216Navi 44
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date12 October 2009 (16 years ago)4 June 2025 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GT 220 and RX 9060 XT 16 GB have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores482048
Core clock speed625 MHz1700 MHz
Boost clock speedno data3130 MHz
Number of transistors486 million29,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt160 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate10.00400.6
Floating-point processing power0.1306 TFLOPS25.64 TFLOPS
ROPs864
TMUs16128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L0 Cacheno data512 KB
L2 Cache64 KB4 MB
L3 Cacheno data32 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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s322.3 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMI1x HDMI 2.1b, 2x DisplayPort 2.1a
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIF + HDAno data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.8
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

GT 220 0.53
RX 9060 XT 16 GB 47.93
+8943%

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.

GT 220 222
Samples: 2213
RX 9060 XT 16 GB 20056
+8934%
Samples: 2549

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 HD21
−8710%
1850−1900
+8710%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.81
−1919%
0.19
+1919%
  • RX 9060 XT 16 GB has 1919% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−8650%
700−750
+8650%
Valorant 27−30
−8829%
2500−2550
+8829%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−8724%
1500−1550
+8724%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Dota 2 10−12
−8536%
950−1000
+8536%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−8650%
700−750
+8650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−8233%
500−550
+8233%
Valorant 27−30
−8829%
2500−2550
+8829%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Dota 2 10−12
−8536%
950−1000
+8536%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−8650%
700−750
+8650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−8233%
500−550
+8233%
Valorant 27−30
−8829%
2500−2550
+8829%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−8900%
180−190
+8900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−8233%
500−550
+8233%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−8900%
180−190
+8900%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−8900%
180−190
+8900%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−8829%
1250−1300
+8829%
Valorant 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−8900%
180−190
+8900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−8900%
180−190
+8900%

This is how GT 220 and RX 9060 XT 16 GB compete in popular games:

  • RX 9060 XT 16 GB is 8710% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 47.93
Recency 12 October 2009 4 June 2025
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 160 Watt

GT 220 has 175.9% lower power consumption.

RX 9060 XT 16 GB, on the other hand, has a 8943.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220
AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB
Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 852 votes

Rate GeForce GT 220 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 805 votes

Rate Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 220 or Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.