GeForce GT 220 vs GT 735M

Place in the ranking	933	1208
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.54	0.68
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GK208	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2013 (11 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	575 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	889 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	915 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	18.40	9.840
Floating-point processing power	0.4416 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 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	+
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP content protection	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF + HDA
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

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 735M 1.68
+195%

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 735M 650
+197%

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	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Full HD	20 −5%	21 +5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.81

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	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +13.3%	30−33 −13.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +13.3%	30−33 −13.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +45.5%	10−12 −45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +20%	10−11 −20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +13.3%	30−33 −13.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+200%

1−2

−200%

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	1−2	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	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

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	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how GT 735M and GT 220 compete in popular games:

GT 735M is 240% faster in 900p
GT 220 is 5% 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 735M is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 735M is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.68	0.57
Recency	1 April 2013	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	58 Watt

GT 735M has a 194.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 75.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 735M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 735M 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.