GeForce FX 5950 Ultra vs GT 220

Place in the ranking	1210	1415
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.69	0.14
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code name	GT216	NV38
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)	23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79.99	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 220 and FX 5950 Ultra have a nearly equal value for money.

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	48	no data
Core clock speed	625 MHz	475 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	135 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	74 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	9.840	3.800
Floating-point processing power	0.1277 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

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	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	AGP 8x
Length	168 mm	229 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x Molex

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	GDDR3	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	475 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.3 GB/s	30.4 GB/s

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	VGADVIHDMI	1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF + HDA	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	9.0a
Shader Model	4.1	no data
OpenGL	3.1	2.1
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
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. 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.

GT 220 0.57
+280%

FX 5950 Ultra 0.15

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.

GT 220 219
+271%

FX 5950 Ultra 59

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

21
+320%

5−6

−320%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.81

99.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 +329%	7−8 −329%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

0−1

This is how GT 220 and FX 5950 Ultra compete in popular games:

GT 220 is 320% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.57	0.15
Recency	12 October 2009	23 October 2003
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	74 Watt

GT 220 has a 280% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 27.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 220 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.