GeForce GT 220 vs GTX 980
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 980 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 4898% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 244 | 1275 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.57 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.34 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 19 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 980 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2048 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 155.6 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.981 TFLOPS | 0.1306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 64 KB |
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 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 500 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 25.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | + |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | S/PDIF + HDA |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D 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 | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 | 93
+343%
| 21
−343%
|
| 1440p | 51
+5000%
| 1−2
−5000%
|
| 4K | 39 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.90
−55%
| 3.81
+55%
|
| 1440p | 10.76
+643%
| 79.99
−643%
|
| 4K | 14.08 | no data |
- GT 220 has 55% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 has 643% lower cost per frame in 1440p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+5000%
|
3−4
−5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 109
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+5000%
|
3−4
−5000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80
+7900%
|
1−2
−7900%
|
| Fortnite | 242
+5950%
|
4−5
−5950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90
+1700%
|
5−6
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 93
+1063%
|
8−9
−1063%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+536%
|
27−30
−536%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90
+8900%
|
1−2
−8900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+5000%
|
3−4
−5000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 260−270
+1476%
|
16−18
−1476%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1073%
|
10−12
−1073%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 73
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Fortnite | 116
+5700%
|
2−3
−5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+1560%
|
5−6
−1560%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 79
+888%
|
8−9
−888%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+1317%
|
6−7
−1317%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+536%
|
27−30
−536%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 82
+8100%
|
1−2
−8100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+1073%
|
10−12
−1073%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 100−110
+4950%
|
2−3
−4950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 69
+6800%
|
1−2
−6800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+1080%
|
5−6
−1080%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+600%
|
8−9
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+667%
|
6−7
−667%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+536%
|
27−30
−536%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 91
+9000%
|
1−2
−9000%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+9400%
|
2−3
−9400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+5000%
|
1−2
−5000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2817%
|
6−7
−2817%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+5300%
|
4−5
−5300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 60−65
+3000%
|
2−3
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 48 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 48
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 53 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 59
+321%
|
14−16
−321%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 160−170
+5233%
|
3−4
−5233%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 32 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 34 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 25
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
This is how GTX 980 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 is 343% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 is 5000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 is 9400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 surpassed GT 220 in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 26.49 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 19 September 2014 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 58 Watt |
GTX 980 has a 4898.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 220, on the other hand, has 184.5% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
