GeForce GT 220 vs UHD Graphics 600

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared UHD Graphics 600 with GeForce GT 220, including specs and performance data.

UHD Graphics 600
2017
5 Watt
0.87
+52.6%

UHD Graphics 600 outperforms GT 220 by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11311212
Place by popularity58not in top-100
Power efficiency11.930.67
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGemini Lake GT1GT216
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date11 December 2017 (7 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 cores9648
Core clock speed200 MHz625 MHz
Boost clock speed650 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)5 Watt58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate7.8009.840
Floating-point processing power0.1248 TFLOPS0.1277 TFLOPS
ROPs28
TMUs1216

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)
Widthno data1-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.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.1
OpenCL3.01.1
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.

UHD Graphics 600 0.87
+52.6%
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.

UHD Graphics 600 334
+52.5%
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 HD9
−133%
21
+133%
1440p10−1

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 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 13
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 11
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+30%
10−11
−30%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 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 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

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 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 UHD Graphics 600 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

  • GT 220 is 133% 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 UHD Graphics 600 is 200% faster.
  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 220 is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics 600 is ahead in 15 tests (43%)
  • GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
  • there's a draw in 19 tests (54%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.87 0.57
Recency 11 December 2017 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 5 Watt 58 Watt

UHD Graphics 600 has a 52.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1060% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 220 in performance tests.

Be aware that UHD Graphics 600 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.

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 UHD Graphics 600
UHD Graphics 600
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 3561 vote

Rate UHD Graphics 600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 776 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.