GeForce GT 220 vs ATI Radeon HD 4850
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4850 and GeForce GT 220, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI HD 4850 outperforms GT 220 by a whopping 372% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 817 | 1218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.25 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.67 | 0.67 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | RV770 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 12 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
ATI HD 4850 and GT 220 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 cores | 800 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 58 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 25.00 | 9.840 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1 TFLOPS | 0.1277 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 246 mm | 168 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 993 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 63.55 GB/s | 25.3 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | VGADVIHDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF + HDA |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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:
| 900p | 29
+383%
| 6−7
−383%
|
| Full HD | 39
+85.7%
| 21
−85.7%
|
| 1200p | 19
+375%
| 4−5
−375%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.10
−34%
| 3.81
+34%
|
- GT 220 has 34% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 45−50
+188%
|
16−18
−188%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+213%
|
8−9
−213%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how ATI HD 4850 and GT 220 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is 383% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 4850 is 86% faster in 1080p
- ATI HD 4850 is 375% faster in 1200p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 4850 is 1700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 4850 is ahead in 29 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.55 | 0.54 |
| Recency | 25 June 2008 | 12 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 58 Watt |
ATI HD 4850 has a 372.2% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 220, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 89.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 4850 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
