GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 350

Place in the ranking	606	1214
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	7.01	0.68
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	6 July 2016 (8 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 cores	512	48
Core clock speed	800 MHz	625 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	25.60	9.840
Floating-point processing power	0.8192 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	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 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	168 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	1-slot	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	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF + HDA

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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

200−210
+852%

−852%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Fortnite	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
World of Tanks	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
World of Tanks	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how R7 350 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

R7 350 is 852% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 33 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.60	0.57
Recency	6 July 2016	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	58 Watt

R7 350 has a 882.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 5.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 350 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.