RTX A4500 vs GeForce GT 220

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 with RTX A4500, including specs and performance data.

GT 220
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.57

RTX A4500 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 9740% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking121045
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.6919.56
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT216GA102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)23 November 2021 (3 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 cores487168
Core clock speed625 MHz1050 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors486 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt200 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.840369.6
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPS23.65 TFLOPS
ROPs896
TMUs16224
Tensor Coresno data224
Ray Tracing Coresno data56

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB20 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit320 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s640.0 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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMI4x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIF + HDAno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.7
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA+8.6

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
RTX A4500 56.09
+9740%

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
RTX A4500 21639
+9781%

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
−9662%
2050−2100
+9662%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.81no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−8650%
350−400
+8650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−9445%
1050−1100
+9445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−9733%
2950−3000
+9733%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−8650%
350−400
+8650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−9445%
1050−1100
+9445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−9400%
950−1000
+9400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−9733%
2950−3000
+9733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−8650%
350−400
+8650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Hitman 3 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−9445%
1050−1100
+9445%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−9400%
950−1000
+9400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−9733%
2950−3000
+9733%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−9567%
290−300
+9567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−9400%
95−100
+9400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−9400%
190−200
+9400%

This is how GT 220 and RTX A4500 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A4500 is 9662% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 56.09
Recency 12 October 2009 23 November 2021
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 20 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 200 Watt

GT 220 has 244.8% lower power consumption.

RTX A4500, on the other hand, has a 9740.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4500 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 RTX A4500 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 RTX A4500
RTX A4500

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.


3.1 757 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 190 votes

Rate RTX A4500 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.