GeForce GT 220 vs GT 630M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 630M with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

GT 630M
2012
1 GB DDR3\GDDR5, 33 Watt
1.40
+146%

GT 630M outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10081214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.920.68
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF108GT216
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date22 March 2012 (12 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$79.99

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 cores9648
Core clock speedUp to 800 MHz625 MHz
Number of transistors585 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate10.569.840
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs1616

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data1-slot

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 typeDDR3\GDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 32.0 GB/s25.3 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 ConnectorsNo outputsVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF + HDA

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
DirectX 11.212 APIno data
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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 630M 1.40
+146%
GT 220 0.57

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 630M 537
+145%
GT 220 219

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:

900p19
+171%
7−8
−171%
Full HD16
−31.3%
21
+31.3%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Elden Ring 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 11
+175%
4−5
−175%
Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Fortnite 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Grand Theft Auto V 4
+300%
1−2
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24
+200%
8−9
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
World of Tanks 35
+106%
16−18
−106%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Dota 2 22
+175%
8−9
−175%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+57.1%
7−8
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GT 630M and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • GT 630M is 171% faster in 900p
  • GT 220 is 31% faster in 1080p

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

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 630M is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 630M is ahead in 23 tests (70%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (30%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.40 0.57
Recency 22 March 2012 12 October 2009
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 58 Watt

GT 630M has a 145.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and 75.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 630M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 630M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop 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 630M
GeForce GT 630M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220

Other comparisons

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.


3.3 919 votes

Rate GeForce GT 630M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 797 votes

Rate GeForce GT 220 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.