GeForce GT 220 vs HD Graphics 4000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4000 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 4000
2012
1.18
+107%

HD Graphics 4000 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10611205
Place by popularity42not in top-100
Power efficiency1.820.68
ArchitectureGeneration 7.0 (2012−2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameIvy Bridge GT2GT216
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 May 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 cores12848
Core clock speed650 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,200 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate16.009.840
Floating-point processing power0.256 TFLOPS0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs28
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).

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
WidthIGP1-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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.3 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentVGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
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.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.03.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+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. 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.

HD Graphics 4000 1.18
+107%
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.

HD Graphics 4000 454
+107%
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:

900p12
+140%
5−6
−140%
Full HD11
−90.9%
21
+90.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.81

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 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+30%
10−11
−30%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+6.7%
30−33
−6.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 4000 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4000 is 140% faster in 900p
  • GT 220 is 91% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD Graphics 4000 is 400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4000 is ahead in 27 tests (77%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (23%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 0.57
Recency 14 May 2012 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm

HD Graphics 4000 has a 107% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.

The HD Graphics 4000 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.


Intel HD Graphics 4000
HD Graphics 4000
NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
GeForce GT 220

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 5175 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 753 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.