GeForce GT 220 vs GT 635M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 635M with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

GT 635M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.45
+154%

GT 635M outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9941212
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.840.67
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF116GT216
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 coresUp to 14448
Core clock speedUp to 675 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed753 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,170 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate16.209.840
Floating-point processing power0.3888 TFLOPS0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs2416

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 192bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 43.2 GB/s25.3 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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 635M 1.45
+154%
GT 220 0.57

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 635M 558
+155%
GT 220 219

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 HD24
+14.3%
21
−14.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GT 635M and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • GT 635M is 14% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 635M is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 635M is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.45 0.57
Recency 22 March 2012 12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 58 Watt

GT 635M has a 154.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 65.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 635M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 635M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 635M
GeForce GT 635M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 464 votes

Rate GeForce GT 635M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 774 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.