GeForce GT 220M vs Radeon Pro 560X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560X with GeForce GT 220M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 560X outperforms 220M by a whopping 2184% 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 | 529 | 1328 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.01 | 2.11 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | G96C |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 July 2018 (7 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) |
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 | 1024 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 1004 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.056 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 64 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 32 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-II |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 25.6 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.1 |
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:
| Full HD | 41
+4000%
| 1−2
−4000%
|
| 1440p | 43
+4200%
| 1−2
−4200%
|
| 4K | 17 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Fortnite | 66
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+1225%
|
4−5
−1225%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+238%
|
24−27
−238%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
+473%
|
14−16
−473%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
+610%
|
10−11
−610%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 34
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Fortnite | 40
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+1150%
|
4−5
−1150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+580%
|
5−6
−580%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+238%
|
24−27
−238%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
+590%
|
10−11
−590%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Valorant | 26
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 32
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+1050%
|
4−5
−1050%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+2375%
|
4−5
−2375%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50
+2200%
|
2−3
−2200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how Pro 560X and GT 220M compete in popular games:
- Pro 560X is 4000% faster in 1080p
- Pro 560X is 4200% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 560X is 5600% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GT 220M is 8% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 560X performs better in 26 tests (93%)
- GT 220M performs better in 1 test (4%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.68 | 0.38 |
| Recency | 16 July 2018 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 14 Watt |
Pro 560X has a 2184.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 220M, on the other hand, has 435.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 560X is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 220M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
