GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon HD 3470
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 1172 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | RV620 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
| Current price | $92 | $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 | 40 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 181 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point performance | 64 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 6.6" (16.8 cm) |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1900 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 15.2 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | 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 | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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%
GeForce GT 220 outperforms Radeon HD 3470 by 81% in Passmark.
Pros & Cons Summary
| Recency | 23 January 2008 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 58 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Radeon HD 3470 and GeForce GT 220. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
