GeForce GT 220 vs UHD Graphics 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 630 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics 630 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 444% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 771 | 1221 |
| Place by popularity | 35 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.24 | 0.68 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Comet Lake GT2 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 184 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+++ | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 26.45 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4232 TFLOPS | 0.1277 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 8 |
| TMUs | 23 | 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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | IGP | 1-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 type | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.3 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 Connectors | No outputs | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| 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.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
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 | 15
−40%
| 21
+40%
|
| 1440p | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
| 4K | 7
+600%
| 1−2
−600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
| 1440p | no data | 79.99 |
| 4K | no data | 79.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 33
+313%
|
8−9
−313%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 29
+70.6%
|
16−18
−70.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+250%
|
8−9
−250%
|
| Valorant | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 7
−114%
|
14−16
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 630 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 40% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 630 is 900% faster in 1440p
- UHD Graphics 630 is 600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 630 is 2000% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 114% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 630 is ahead in 28 tests (85%)
- GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.99 | 0.55 |
| Recency | 1 October 2017 | 12 October 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 58 Watt |
UHD Graphics 630 has a 443.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 286.7% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 630 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
