GRID K220Q vs ION 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared ION 2 with GRID K220Q, including specs and performance data.
K220Q outperforms ION 2 by a whopping 627% 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 | 1391 | 915 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 0.75 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | GK104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 2 July 2014 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $469 |
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 | 16 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 745 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 3,540 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 95.36 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03424 TFLOPS | 2.289 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | 1.2 | 3.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−622%
|
65−70
+622%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.30 | 2.18 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 2 July 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 225 Watt |
ION 2 has 1025% lower power consumption.
GRID K220Q, on the other hand, has a 627% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The GRID K220Q is our recommended choice as it beats the ION 2 in performance tests.
Be aware that ION 2 is a notebook graphics card while GRID K220Q is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
