GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 250E

Place in performance ranking	639	1173
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.11	no data
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	20 December 2013 (10 years ago)	12 October 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109	$79.99
Current price	$599 (5.5x MSRP)	$121 (1.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 250E and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	512	48
CUDA cores	no data	48
Core clock speed	800 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	25.60	9.840
Floating-point performance	819.2 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 3.0 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

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	4500 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 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 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 compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	1.2	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

160−170
+662%

−662%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

21−24

+600%

3−4
−600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Hitman 3	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +650%	12−14 −650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Hitman 3	14−16 +600%	2−3 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +650%	12−14 −650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	90−95 +650%	12−14 −650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +614%	7−8 −614%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +622%	9−10 −622%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Hitman 3	45−50 +650%	6−7 −650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +600%	3−4 −600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

+600%

3−4
−600%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn

7−8
+600%

1−2

−600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16

+600%

2−3
−600%

This is how R7 250E and GT 220 compete in popular games:

R7 250E is 662% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.30	0.56
Recency	20 December 2013	12 October 2009
Cost	$109	$79.99
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	58 Watt