GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 265

Place in the ranking	438	1212
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.27	no data
Power efficiency	4.75	0.67
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	13 February 2014 (10 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 265 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	48
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	59.20	9.840
Floating-point processing power	1.894 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	64	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	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	210 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	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	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1400 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF + HDA

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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

350−400
+1567%

−1567%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

0.43

3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

This is how R7 265 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

R7 265 is 1567% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.41	0.57
Recency	13 February 2014	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	58 Watt

R7 265 has a 1726.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 220, on the other hand, has 158.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.