GeForce GT 220 vs Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 1683% 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 | 501 | 1285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.70 |
| Architecture | Xe LPG (2023−2025) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Meteor Lake iGPU | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 December 2023 (2 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1950 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 5 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 20
−5%
| 21
+5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+241%
|
27−30
−241%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+753%
|
16−18
−753%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30
+500%
|
5−6
−500%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+241%
|
27−30
−241%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+1833%
|
3−4
−1833%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+2020%
|
5−6
−2020%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+42.9%
|
14−16
−42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 5% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is 3550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) performs better in 23 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.45 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 14 December 2023 | 12 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 40 nm |
Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) has a 1683% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that Graphics 4-Core iGPU (Arrow Lake) is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
