GeForce GT 220 vs ATI Radeon HD 5770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5770 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 5770 outperforms 220 by a whopping 672% 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 | 716 | 1266 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.74 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.88 | 0.69 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Juniper | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
ATI HD 5770 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 800 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 34.00 | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.36 TFLOPS | 0.1306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 64 KB |
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 | 208 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 25.3 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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:
| 900p | 24
+700%
| 3−4
−700%
|
| Full HD | 50
+138%
| 21
−138%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.18
+19.8%
| 3.81
−19.8%
|
- ATI HD 5770 has 20% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+329%
|
16−18
−329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+236%
|
10−12
−236%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+236%
|
10−12
−236%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+96.4%
|
27−30
−96.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how ATI HD 5770 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5770 is 700% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5770 is 138% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 5770 is 1450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI HD 5770 surpassed GT 220 in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.86 | 0.50 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 58 Watt |
ATI HD 5770 has a 672% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 220, on the other hand, has 86.2% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 5770 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 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.
