GeForce GT 220 vs MX110
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX110 with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.
MX110 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 549% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 728 | 1231 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.41 | 0.67 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM108S | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 November 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 256 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 978 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1006 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,020 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 16.10 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5151 TFLOPS | 0.1277 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 16 |
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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 25.3 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 Connectors | Portable Device Dependent | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 (5.1) | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/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.
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.
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 | 18
−16.7%
| 21
+16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.81 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+78.6%
|
27−30
−78.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+165%
|
16−18
−165%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 36
+227%
|
10−12
−227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Fortnite | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+78.6%
|
27−30
−78.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 33
+200%
|
10−12
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+78.6%
|
27−30
−78.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GeForce MX110 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- GT 220 is 17% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX110 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GeForce MX110 surpassed GT 220 in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.18 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 17 November 2017 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 58 Watt |
GeForce MX110 has a 549% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 93.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX110 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX110 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
