Radeon RX Vega 7 vs GeForce GT 220
Aggregate performance score
Radeon RX Vega 7 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by a whopping 1249% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1176 | 501 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.96 |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | Vega (2017−2021) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) | 7 January 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79.99 | no data |
| Current price | $121 (1.5x MSRP) | $387 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 220 and RX Vega 7 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 448 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 9.840 | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 144 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 220 and Radeon RX Vega 7 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.
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 6.6" (16.8 cm) | 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 | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 790 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
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 | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| 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_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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
−9.5%
| 23
+9.5%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1850%
| 39
+1850%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1600%
| 17
+1600%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−325%
|
17
+325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1750%
|
37
+1750%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−600%
|
21
+600%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−273%
|
41
+273%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−263%
|
29
+263%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−800%
|
18
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−600%
|
28
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35
+1650%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−133%
|
7
+133%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−182%
|
31
+182%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
−138%
|
19
+138%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−533%
|
19
+533%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−475%
|
21−24
+475%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1250%
|
27
+1250%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
−100%
|
22
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−333%
|
13
+333%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−500%
|
24
+500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
This is how GT 220 and RX Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 7 is 10% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 7 is 1850% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 7 is 1600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 7 is 1750% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 7 surpassed GT 220 in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.55 | 7.42 |
| Recency | 12 October 2009 | 7 January 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 58 Watt | 15 Watt |
The Radeon RX Vega 7 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 RX Vega 7 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
