GeForce GT 220 vs HD Graphics 510

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

HD Graphics 510
2015
32768 Mb LPDDR3/DDR4
1.37
+149%

HD Graphics 510 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 149% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking9661171
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.04no data
ArchitectureGen. 9 Skylake (2015−2016)GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code nameSkylake GT1GT216
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 September 2015 (8 years old)12 October 2009 (14 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$79.99
Current price$476 $121 (1.5x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD Graphics 510 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

Technical specs

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 cores1248
CUDA coresno data48
Core clock speed300 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate11.409.840
Floating-point performance182.4 gflops144 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on HD Graphics 510 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.

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x1PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data6.6" (16.8 cm)
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot

Memory

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 typeLPDDR3/DDR4GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount32 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.3 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMIno data+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

Technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API support

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.1
OpenCL2.11.1
Vulkan1.1.97N/A
CUDAno data+

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.

HD Graphics 510 1.37
+149%
GT 220 0.55

HD Graphics 510 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 149% 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%

HD Graphics 510 625
+192%
GT 220 214

HD Graphics 510 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 192% 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 HD50−55
+138%
21
−138%

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 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 2−3 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 2−3 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
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

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
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 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
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 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
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
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 510 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • HD Graphics 510 is 138% faster than GT 220

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD Graphics 510 is 100% faster than the GT 220.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 510 is ahead in 19 tests (76%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (24%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 1.37 0.55
Recency 1 September 2015 12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 58 Watt

The HD Graphics 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 510 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.

Vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 510
HD Graphics 510
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User Ratings

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 317 votes

Rate Intel HD Graphics 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 658 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.