GeForce GT 220 vs GTS 350M
Aggregated performance score
GTS 350M outperforms GT 220 by 91% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1051 | 1172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | n11e-ge1 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
| Current price | $230 | $121 (1.5x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 350M and GT 220 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 | 96 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | 96 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point performance | 240 gflops | 144 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 360 | no data |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GTS 350M and GeForce GT 220 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.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 6.6" (16.8 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| SLI options | + | no data |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2000 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 25.3 GB/s |
| 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 | DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 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.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
GTS 350M outperforms GT 220 by 91% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GTS 350M outperforms GT 220 by 90% in Passmark.
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 | 40−45
+90.5%
| 21
−90.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GTS 350M and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GTS 350M is 90.5% faster than GT 220 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 350M is 100% faster than the GT 220.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 350M is ahead in 12 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (52%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.05 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 12 October 2009 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 58 Watt |
The GeForce GTS 350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTS 350M 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.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
