GeForce GT 220 vs ATI Radeon HD 4250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4250 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 220 outperforms ATI HD 4250 by an impressive 83% 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 | 1372 | 1263 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.88 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV620 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 February 2009 (16 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 40 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 594 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 181 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 2.376 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04752 TFLOPS | 0.1277 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 4 | 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 | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | DDR2 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 396 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.336 GB/s | 25.3 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 10−12
−110%
| 21
+110%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−7.7%
|
27−30
+7.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 4250 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 110% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 220 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 220 performs better in 22 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 25 February 2009 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 58 Watt |
ATI HD 4250 has 132% lower power consumption.
GT 220, on the other hand, has a 82.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 220 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4250 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
