GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R9 M385X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M385X with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

R9 M385X
2015
4 GB GDDR5
4.77
+800%

R9 M385X outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6881285
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.70
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameStratoGT216
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 May 2015 (10 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.

no data

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 cores89648
Core clock speed1000 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate61.6010.00
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS0.1306 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs5616
L1 Cache224 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KB64 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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s25.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputsVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.34.1
OpenGL4.43.1
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan-N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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.

R9 M385X 4.77
+800%
GT 220 0.53

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.

R9 M385X 1993
+794%
Samples: 9
GT 220 223
Samples: 2219

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 HD27
+28.6%
21
−28.6%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 8−9 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Fortnite 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Valorant 60−65
+122%
27−30
−122%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 80−85
+388%
16−18
−388%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Dota 2 40−45
+273%
10−12
−273%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Fortnite 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+340%
5−6
−340%
Valorant 60−65
+122%
27−30
−122%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Dota 2 40−45
+273%
10−12
−273%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+180%
5−6
−180%
Valorant 60−65
+122%
27−30
−122%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 27−30
+867%
3−4
−867%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+483%
6−7
−483%
Valorant 50−55
+940%
5−6
−940%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 9−10 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Valorant 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how R9 M385X and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • R9 M385X is 29% 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 M385X is 1750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 M385X surpassed GT 220 in all 27 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.77 0.53
Recency 5 May 2015 12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R9 M385X has a 800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M385X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M385X 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.

Community ratings

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


3.5 6 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M385X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 871 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M385X or GeForce GT 220, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.