HD Graphics 400 vs GeForce GT 220

Place in the ranking	1208	1073
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.68	13.09
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 8.0 (2014−2015)
GPU code name	GT216	Braswell GT1
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)	1 April 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	96
Core clock speed	625 MHz	320 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	600 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	6 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	9.840	7.200
Floating-point processing power	0.1277 TFLOPS	0.1152 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	2
TMUs	16	12

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	Ring Bus
Length	168 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	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	GDDR3	DDR3L
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	25.3 GB/s	no data
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	VGADVIHDMI	Portable Device Dependent
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)	12 (11_1)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	3.1	4.3
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	+	-

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

−90.5%

40−45
+90.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.81

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −83.3%	55−60 +83.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −83.3%	55−60 +83.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Hitman 3	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −90.9%	21−24 +90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −80%	18−20 +80%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −83.3%	55−60 +83.3%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

+0%

1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−66.7%

5−6
+66.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

This is how GT 220 and HD Graphics 400 compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 400 is 90% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.57	1.13
Recency	12 October 2009	1 April 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	58 Watt	6 Watt

HD Graphics 400 has a 98.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 866.7% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop card while HD Graphics 400 is a notebook one.

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