Quadro FX 4500 vs GeForce GT 220

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 with Quadro FX 4500, including specs and performance data.

GT 220
2009
512 MB DDR3, 58 Watt
0.57

FX 4500 outperforms GT 220 by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking11741170
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGT2xx (2009−2012)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGT216G70
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date12 October 2009 (14 years ago)28 July 2005 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 220 and FX 4500 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores48no data
Core clock speed615 MHz430 MHz
Number of transistors486 million302 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt109 Watt
Texture fill rate9.84010.32
Floating-point performance144 gflopsno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz1050 MHz
Memory bandwidth32 GB/s33.6 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA2x DVI, 1x S-Video
HDMI+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.2no data

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.

GT 220 0.57
FX 4500 0.59
+3.5%

Quadro FX 4500 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GT 220 219
FX 4500 227
+3.7%

Quadro FX 4500 outperforms GeForce GT 220 by 4% in Passmark.

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 HD21
+0%
21−24
+0%

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 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GT 220 and FX 4500 compete in popular games:

  • A tie in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 0.59
Recency 12 October 2009 28 July 2005
Chip lithography 40 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 109 Watt

GT 220 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 175% more advanced lithography process, and 87.9% lower power consumption.

FX 4500, on the other hand, has a 3.5% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 220 and Quadro FX 4500.

Be aware that GeForce GT 220 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 4500 is a workstation 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.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Quadro FX 4500

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.


3.1 710 votes

Rate GeForce GT 220 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4500 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.