Radeon RX 6900 XT vs GeForce GT 220

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 220 and Radeon RX 6900 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 220
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 58 Watt
0.57

RX 6900 XT outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 12086% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking120822
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data29.85
Power efficiency0.6816.00
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT216Navi 21
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)28 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79.99 $999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 220 and RX 6900 XT 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 cores485120
Core clock speed625 MHz1825 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2250 MHz
Number of transistors486 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)58 Watt300 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate9.840720.0
Floating-point processing power0.1277 TFLOPS23.04 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs16320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80

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-slot3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.3 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsVGADVIHDMI1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
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 Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.14.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
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
RX 6900 XT 69.46
+12086%

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
RX 6900 XT 26796
+12136%

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
−776%
184
+776%
1440p1−2
−12600%
127
+12600%
4K0−185

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.815.43
1440p79.997.87
4Kno data11.75

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4400%
130−140
+4400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2825%
117
+2825%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−3867%
110−120
+3867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4400%
130−140
+4400%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−16900%
170−180
+16900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2480%
120−130
+2480%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2200%
250−260
+2200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4783%
290−300
+4783%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−407%
150−160
+407%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−6875%
279
+6875%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−3867%
110−120
+3867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4400%
130−140
+4400%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−16900%
170−180
+16900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2480%
120−130
+2480%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2200%
250−260
+2200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4783%
290−300
+4783%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−1390%
140−150
+1390%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−407%
150−160
+407%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2350%
98
+2350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−3867%
110−120
+3867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4400%
130−140
+4400%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2480%
120−130
+2480%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−2473%
283
+2473%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4783%
290−300
+4783%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−1540%
164
+1540%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−303%
121
+303%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−11000%
110−120
+11000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 99
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−8100%
80−85
+8100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1583%
100−110
+1583%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−7367%
224
+7367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−23800%
230−240
+23800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−3700%
110−120
+3700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−6700%
68
+6700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 66

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−3650%
75−80
+3650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 169
+0%
169
+0%
Battlefield 5 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 142
+0%
142
+0%
Battlefield 5 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 137
+0%
137
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 248
+0%
248
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 109
+0%
109
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Metro Exodus 117
+0%
117
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Hitman 3 83
+0%
83
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122
+0%
122
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 162
+0%
162
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 54
+0%
54
+0%

This is how GT 220 and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is 776% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6900 XT is 12600% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 23800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 69.46
Recency 12 October 2009 28 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 58 Watt 300 Watt

GT 220 has 417.2% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 12086% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.


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
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT
Radeon RX 6900 XT

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.


3.1 754 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 3669 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT 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.