GeForce GT 220 vs Quadro K420

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K420 with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K420
2014
1 GB/2 GB 128-bit, 41 Watt
1.90
+233%

K420 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 233% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9151222
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.08no data
Power efficiency3.200.68
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK107GT216
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 July 2014 (10 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$96.67 $79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Quadro K420 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores19248
Core clock speed876 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate14.029.840
Floating-point processing power0.3364 TFLOPS0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs1616

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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length160 mm168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width1" (2.5 cm)1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 type128 BitGDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB/2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 29 GB/s25.3 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPortVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA3.0+

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.

Quadro K420 1.90
+233%
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.

Quadro K420 734
+235%
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 HD70−75
+233%
21
−233%

Cost per frame, $

1080p1.38
+176%
3.81
−176%
  • Quadro K420 has 176% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how Quadro K420 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K420 is 233% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.90 0.57
Recency 22 July 2014 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 58 Watt

Quadro K420 has a 233.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 41.5% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K420 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K420 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

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


NVIDIA Quadro K420
Quadro K420
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.5 145 votes

Rate Quadro K420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 810 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K420 or GeForce GT 220, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.