GeForce GT 220 vs Radeon R7 M260

Place in the ranking	1025	1205
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	no data
Power efficiency	no data	0.68
Architecture	GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Topaz	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	11 June 2014 (10 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$799	$79.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 M260 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	384	48
Compute units	6	no data
Core clock speed	940 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	980 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,550 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	23.52	9.840
Floating-point processing power	0.7526 TFLOPS	0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 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	No outputs	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.

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.3	4.1
OpenGL	4.3	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 M260 1.29
+126%

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.

R7 M260 499
+128%

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

−61.5%

21
+61.5%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

61.46

3.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	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 +10%	30−33 −10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	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	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3	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	3 −233%	10−11 +233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +10%	30−33 −10%

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	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

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

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

This is how R7 M260 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

GT 220 is 62% 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 R7 M260 is 500% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 233% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

R7 M260 is ahead in 31 test (89%)
GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.29	0.57
Recency	11 June 2014	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

R7 M260 has a 126.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 M260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 M260 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 220 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.