GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 370

Place in the ranking	416	1219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	6.49	no data
Power efficiency	7.31	0.67
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Trinidad	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	$79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R7 370 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	1024	48
Core clock speed	no data	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	975 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	2,800 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	62.40	9.840
Floating-point processing power	1.997 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	8
TMUs	64	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	PCIe 3.0	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	152 mm	168 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 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	GDDR5	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	975 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 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	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
DisplayPort support	+	-
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.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
Mantle	+	-
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.

R7 370 11.39
+1971%

GT 220 0.55

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.

R7 370 4499
+1954%

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:

Full HD	47 +124%	21 −124%
1440p	57 +2750%	2−3 −2750%
4K	20	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.17 +20.2%	3.81 −20.2%
1440p	2.61 +1430%	40.00 −1430%
4K	7.45	no data

R7 370 has 20% lower cost per frame in 1080p
R7 370 has 1430% lower cost per frame in 1440p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +683%	6−7 −683%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +500%	5−6 −500%
Valorant	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Dota 2	29 +2800%	1−2 −2800%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +400%	9−10 −400%
Fortnite	65−70	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +683%	6−7 −683%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
Grand Theft Auto V	44 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55 +588%	8−9 −588%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +500%	5−6 −500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	37 +640%	5−6 −640%
Valorant	45−50 +2200%	2−3 −2200%
World of Tanks	160−170 +853%	16−18 −853%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 +667%	3−4 −667%
Dota 2	40−45 +2000%	2−3 −2000%
Far Cry 5	45−50 +400%	9−10 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +683%	6−7 −683%
Forza Horizon 5	30−33 +2900%	1−2 −2900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27 +238%	8−9 −238%
Valorant	20	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 +2133%	3−4 −2133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11	0−1
World of Tanks	81 +8000%	1−2 −8000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Forza Horizon 5	18−20	0−1
Metro Exodus	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Valorant	17 +240%	5−6 −240%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Dota 2	21−24 +46.7%	14−16 −46.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +46.7%	14−16 −46.7%
Metro Exodus	7−8	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	37 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +46.7%	14−16 −46.7%
World of Tanks	45 +2150%	2−3 −2150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Dota 2	21−24 +46.7%	14−16 −46.7%
Far Cry 5	14−16	0−1
Fortnite	12−14	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	9−10	0−1
Valorant	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%

This is how R7 370 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

R7 370 is 124% faster in 1080p
R7 370 is 2750% faster in 1440p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 370 is 8000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, R7 370 surpassed GT 220 in all 32 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.39	0.55
Recency	18 June 2015	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	58 Watt

R7 370 has a 1970.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 220, on the other hand, has 89.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 370 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.