GeForce GT 220 vs GTX 1050 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1050 Mobile outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 1963% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 383 | 1173 |
| Place by popularity | 88 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 11.11 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | GP107B | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 January 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
| Current price | $256 | $121 (1.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 1050 Mobile 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 | 640 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1354 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 59.72 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 144 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | 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 |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 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 | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | 2.2 | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
| 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.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
GTX 1050 Mobile outperforms GT 220 by 1963% based on our aggregate 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%
GTX 1050 Mobile outperforms GT 220 by 1956% 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:
| 900p | 73
+2333%
| 3−4
−2333%
|
| Full HD | 46
+119%
| 21
−119%
|
| 1440p | 24
+2300%
| 1−2
−2300%
|
| 4K | 15 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1050−1100
+1959%
|
51
−1959%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 800−850
+1951%
|
39
−1951%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1100−1150
+1900%
|
55
−1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 550−600
+1937%
|
27
−1937%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 140−150
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 900−950
+1945%
|
44
−1945%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 700−750
+1844%
|
36
−1844%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1050−1100
+1919%
|
52
−1919%
|
| Metro Exodus | 350−400
+1742%
|
19
−1742%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 280−290
+1900%
|
14
−1900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 140−150
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 750−800
+1927%
|
37
−1927%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 650−700
+1870%
|
33
−1870%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 650−700
+1870%
|
33
−1870%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 750−800
+1927%
|
37
−1927%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 350−400
+1844%
|
18
−1844%
|
| Metro Exodus | 220−230
+1900%
|
11
−1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 350−400
+1742%
|
18−20
−1742%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 350−400
+1959%
|
17
−1959%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 260−270
+1900%
|
13
−1900%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 500−550
+1823%
|
26
−1823%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 450−500
+1775%
|
24
−1775%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 500−550
+1823%
|
26
−1823%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 200−210
+1900%
|
10
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 140−150
+1900%
|
7
−1900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 220−230
+1900%
|
10−12
−1900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 160−170
+1900%
|
8
−1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 200−210
+1900%
|
10−11
−1900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 260−270
+1900%
|
13
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 220−230
+1900%
|
11
−1900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 220−230
+1900%
|
11
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−310
+1900%
|
15
−1900%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 240−250
+1900%
|
12−14
−1900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 180−190
+1900%
|
9−10
−1900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 240−250
+1900%
|
12−14
−1900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 180−190
+1900%
|
9−10
−1900%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 240−250
+1900%
|
12−14
−1900%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 140−150
+1900%
|
7−8
−1900%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 180−190
+1900%
|
9−10
−1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 80−85
+1900%
|
4−5
−1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Hitman 3 | 120−130
+1900%
|
6−7
−1900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+1900%
|
4−5
−1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
This is how GTX 1050 Mobile and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 2333% faster in 900p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 119% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1050 Mobile is 2300% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.55 | 0.56 |
| Recency | 3 January 2017 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4000 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 58 Watt |
The GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 Mobile 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.
