GeForce GT 220 vs GT 650M

Place in the ranking	760	1214
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.80	0.68
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK107	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	22 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 cores	384	48
Core clock speed	Up to 900 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,270 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	30.40	9.840
Floating-point processing power	0.7296 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	16

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	1-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 type	DDR3\GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 80.0 GB/s	25.3 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 Connectors	No outputs	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	Up to 2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/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.

DirectX	12 API	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.5	3.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/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 650M 3.13
+449%

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 650M 1202
+449%

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:

900p	31 +520%	5−6 −520%
Full HD	31 +47.6%	21 −47.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Elden Ring	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Dota 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Elden Ring	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Fortnite	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
Grand Theft Auto V	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +250%	8−9 −250%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Valorant	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	72 +324%	16−18 −324%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +22.2%	9−10 −22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Dota 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +143%	7−8 −143%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +133%	6−7 −133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +250%	8−9 −250%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Elden Ring	3−4	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +633%	3−4 −633%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Valorant	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Elden Ring	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Fortnite	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Valorant	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%

This is how GT 650M and GT 220 compete in popular games:

GT 650M is 520% faster in 900p
GT 650M is 48% faster in 1080p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 650M is 2100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 650M is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.13	0.57
Recency	22 March 2012	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	58 Watt

GT 650M has a 449.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 28.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 650M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 650M 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.