GeForce GT 220 vs Iris Plus Graphics 655

Place in the ranking	657	1207
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	20.69	0.68
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Coffee Lake GT3e	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	3 April 2018 (6 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	384	48
Core clock speed	300 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1050 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm+++	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	50.40	9.840
Floating-point processing power	0.8064 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	6	8
TMUs	48	16

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	Ring Bus	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	IGP	1-slot

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	25.3 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

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	Portable Device Dependent	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
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.

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.3	N/A
CUDA	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 4.49
+688%

GT 220 0.57

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.

Iris Plus Graphics 655 1733
+691%

GT 220 219

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	19 −10.5%	21 +10.5%
1440p	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
4K	16 +700%	2−3 −700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	3.81
1440p	no data	79.99
4K	no data	40.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+133%

3−4

−133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +820%	5−6 −820%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +155%	10−12 −155%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	23 +283%	6−7 −283%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.7%	30−33 −46.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	40 +700%	5−6 −700%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +155%	10−12 −155%
Metro Exodus	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +60%	10−11 −60%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.7%	30−33 −46.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +767%	3−4 −767%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10 −10%	10−12 +10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	15 +150%	6−7 −150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +46.7%	30−33 −46.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+1000%

1−2

−1000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how Iris Plus Graphics 655 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

GT 220 is 11% faster in 1080p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 1100% faster in 1440p
Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 700% faster in 4K

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

in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Iris Plus Graphics 655 is 2500% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Iris Plus Graphics 655 is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
GT 220 is ahead in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.49	0.57
Recency	3 April 2018	12 October 2009
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	58 Watt

Iris Plus Graphics 655 has a 687.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 286.7% lower power consumption.

The Iris Plus Graphics 655 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.