GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon E8950
Aggregated performance score
Radeon E8950 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 2473% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 343 | 1171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2017) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Amethyst | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 September 2015 (8 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
| Current price | no data | $121 (1.5x MSRP) |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed Specifications
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 cores | 2048 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 735 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 128.0 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point performance | 4,096 gflops | 144 gflops |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 6.6" (16.8 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | MXM Module | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 25.3 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 Connectors | No outputs | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 500−550
+2281%
| 21
−2281%
|
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 14.15 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 29 September 2015 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 58 Watt |
The Radeon E8950 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.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
