GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

R7 (Carrizo)
2015
12 Watt
2.00
+251%

R7 (Carrizo) outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 251% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking8851207
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.950.68
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameCarrizoGT216
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 June 2015 (9 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores51248
Core clock speedno data625 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors2410 Million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data9.840
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot

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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.3 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 Connectorsno dataVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.1
OpenCLno data1.1
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 HD9
−133%
21
+133%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+40%
10−11
−40%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+54.5%
10−12
−54.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how R7 (Carrizo) and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • GT 220 is 133% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 (Carrizo) is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R7 (Carrizo) is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.00 0.57
Recency 4 June 2015 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 58 Watt

R7 (Carrizo) has a 250.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 383.3% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is a notebook card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 7 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 754 votes

Rate GeForce GT 220 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.