GeForce GT 220 vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
M2000 outperforms GT 220 by an impressive 94% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1095 | 1225 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.27 | 0.67 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Turks | GT216 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (12 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 | 480 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.1277 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | chip-down | 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 | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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:
| 900p | 9
+125%
| 4−5
−125%
|
| Full HD | 16
−31.3%
| 21
+31.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+14.3%
|
27−30
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M2000 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- FirePro M2000 is 125% faster in 900p
- GT 220 is 31% 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 FirePro M2000 is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M2000 is ahead in 26 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (13%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 12 October 2009 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 58 Watt |
FirePro M2000 has a 93.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 75.8% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation 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.
