GeForce GT 220 vs FirePro M2000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro M2000 with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

FirePro M2000
2012
1 GB GDDR5, 33 Watt
1.10
+93%

FirePro M2000 outperforms GT 220 by an impressive 93% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking10871216
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTerascale 2 (2009−2015)GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code nameTurks GLMGT216
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 July 2012 (12 years ago)12 October 2009 (14 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 performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores48048
CUDA coresno data48
Core clock speed500 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors716 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate12.009.840
Floating-point performance0.48 gflops0.1277 gflops

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 supportn/aPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Form factorchip-downno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed3200 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.3 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 outputsVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
StereoOutput3D+-
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.43.1
OpenCL1.21.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

FirePro M2000 1.10
+93%
GT 220 0.57

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

FirePro M2000 425
+94.1%
GT 220 219

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:

900p9
+125%
4−5
−125%
Full HD16
−31.3%
21
+31.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 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 Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M2000 is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FirePro M2000 is ahead in 24 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 11 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.10 0.57
Recency 1 July 2012 12 October 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 58 Watt

FirePro M2000 has a 93% 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.


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 FirePro M2000
FirePro M2000
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.


3.3 4 votes

Rate FirePro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 737 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.