GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
R9 M290X Crossfire outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 3140% 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 | 348 | 1276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.63 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Neptune CF | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 March 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2560 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2x 2800 Million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 2x 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.3 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 data | 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 | 12 (FL 11_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 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 | 62
+195%
| 21
−195%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+3200%
|
3−4
−3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+3200%
|
3−4
−3200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+389%
|
27−30
−389%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+3200%
|
3−4
−3200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+1194%
|
16−18
−1194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+845%
|
10−12
−845%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+3200%
|
2−3
−3200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+389%
|
27−30
−389%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 70−75
+3600%
|
2−3
−3600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+845%
|
10−12
−845%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75
+3450%
|
2−3
−3450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1340%
|
5−6
−1340%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+725%
|
8−9
−725%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+389%
|
27−30
−389%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 95−100
+4650%
|
2−3
−4650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+6350%
|
2−3
−6350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+2667%
|
6−7
−2667%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+3300%
|
5−6
−3300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 95−100
+3200%
|
3−4
−3200%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+6100%
|
1−2
−6100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
This is how R9 M290X Crossfire and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- R9 M290X Crossfire is 195% 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 R9 M290X Crossfire is 6350% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 M290X Crossfire surpassed GT 220 in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.17 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 1 March 2014 | 12 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 58 Watt |
R9 M290X Crossfire has a 3139.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GT 220, on the other hand, has 244.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M290X Crossfire is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
