Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: geforce, gt, 220
Categories: Graphics
GeForce GT220 And 210: Speeds And Feeds
Let's start off by looking at the major specifications of the new GeForce GT 220 and 210 graphics cards:
| GT 220 | G210 | |
|---|---|---|
| GPU Designation | GT216 | GT218 |
| Fabrication Process | 40 nm | |
| Graphics Clock (Texture and ROP units) | 625 MHz | 589 MHz |
| Processor Clock (Shader Units) | 1,360 MHz | 1,402 MHz |
| Memory Clock (Clock Rate/Data Rate) | 790 MHz (1,580 MHz effective) DDR3 1,012 MHz (2,024 MHz effective) GDDR3 | 500 MHz (1,000 MHz effective) DDR2 |
| Total Video Memory | 1GB, 512MB | 512MB |
| Memory Interface | 128-bit | 64-bit |
| Total Memory Bandwidth | 25.3 GB/s (DDR3) 32.4 GB/s (GDDR3) | 8 GB/s (DDR2) |
| Stream Processors | 48 | 16 |
| ROP units | 8 | 4 |
| Texture Filtering Units | 16 | 8 |
| Microsoft DirectX/Shader model | 10.1/4.1 | |
| OpenGL | 3.2 | |
| PhysX Ready | Yes | No |
| Video Format Support for GPU Decode Acceleration | MPEG-2, MPEG-4 Part 2 Advanced Simple Profile, H.264, VC1, WMV, DivX version 3.11 and later | |
| HD Digital Audio over PCI Express | Yes | |
| Connectors | DVI, VGA, HDMI | |
| Form Factor | Single-Slot | |
| Power Connectors | None | |
| HDMI version | 1.3a | |
| DisplayPort | 1.1 | |
| Dual Link HDCP | Yes | |
| Bus Support | PCIe 2.0 | |
| Max Board power | 58 Watts | 30.5 Watts |
| GPU Thermal Threshold | 105 degrees C | |
Because these new cards are both based on the same GT200 architecture underlying the GeForce GTX 260/275/280/285/295, we won't scrutinize the minutia too much. Rather, we'll concentrate on what makes these new cards different. For details on GT200 itself, check out our GeForce GTX 280 article here.
For a quick refresh, the GeForce GTX 285 has 10 texture-processing clusters (TPCs) with 24 individual streaming processors (SPs) or cores in each one. Each TPC also has eight texture management units (TMUs). There are eight 64-bit raster-operator partitions (ROPs), each capable of handling eight operations per clock. As a result, the GeForce GTX 285 sports a total of 240 processor cores, 80 TMUs, and eight ROPs capable of handling 64 pixels per clock, with all of the ROPs contributing to a 512-bit memory bus.
The GT216 GPU in the GeForce GT 220, on the other hand, has only two of these TPCs, each containing 24 SPs for a total of 48 processor cores. Like the GeForce GTX 280, each TPC has eight TMUs, for a total of 16 TMUs. Two 64-bit ROPs capable of handling four pixels per clock work together to give the GPU a 128-bit memory interface and the capacity to handle eight raster operations per clock. Knowing this, we can expect the GT 220 to wield about one-fifth the processing power of the GeForce GTX 285.
The GT218 GPU in the GeForce 210 is significantly smaller, with a single TPC armed with 16 processor cores and eight TMUs in total. Raster operations are handled by a single 64-bit ROP capable of handling four pixels per clock. The end result is that the GeForce 210 should be approximately one-third as powerful as the GT 220.
These new GPUs weren't designed by copying and pasting the GT200's transistors, so Nvidia's engineers added some new tricks in the process: DirectX 10.1 and Shader Model 4.1 support, an integrated audio controller supporting eight-channel LPCM audio output, and enhanced playback support for DivX, VC-1, MPEG-2, and even Flash-based video streams.
Perhaps more important, these new GPUs are manufactured on TSMC's 40nm process and represent Nvidia's first 40nm commercial GPUs. This is an important milestone because, assuming good yields, this should allow Nvidia to produce more of these GPUs per die, and therefore, per dollar.
- Previous page Introduction
- Next page Gigabyte's GeForce 210 And GT 220
LOL Nvidia Just now work at DirectX 10.1
When ATI Radeon have a New Videocard and the Best in The World with DirectX 11 
AMD-ATI Rullz
ATI rullz, they have 2. it keeps AMD alive.
I think they're both 64-bit
I don't really know what to make of these cards..two steps forwards, one step back is the closest I can come to a definitive impression.
The 210 seems like it' only good for low-spec HTPC's, or environments where minimal power draw is an absolute necessity. The features like CUDA and extended video acceleration are nice, but do they make up for that 64-bit drudgery that seems to go hand-in-hand with so many nVidia offerings? No, it doesn't..the competition in this price range is too stiff to start making those kind of cut-backs.
Just drop the junk and focus on what's good, even if it costs slightly more; the 22 is far superior to the 210, it's in a totally different class and is able to compete with AMD's budget offerings whilst sporting some nice new features. That 210 is the 'MX' of modern technology and quite frankly those days are gone..you just can't fob people off with junk like that anymore, in my opinion. Roll with the technology instead of repeatedly rolling out junk that can barely compete with technology that's a year-old..
I'm really not convinced that there is a compelling reason to choose these cards over older-generation cards with more muscle. They are too feeble to really utilise features in DX 10.1 whilst keeping the rezolution and framerates up.
I can see a place for the chips inside mass-market manufacturer's home desktops (Dell etc). I can't see why anyone with enough knowledge to be able to upgrade their own system would go for one of these, for the same budget you could get far better framerates (and overall gaming experiences) elsewhere.
Not what i was hoping for, why cant nvidia make a card that will rival the ati 4770 and the 5750, the gts 250 power consumption is way to high, i hope the GeForce GTS 340 is good
Compare these cards to say, the Geforce Geforce 2 MX 200, Geforce FX 5600 or the Geforce 7300LE - all those cards supported the latest features only in name, not performance. Same thing seems to be happening again. I reckon even decent onboard video would be enough to lure budget uses away from that 210. They've skimped, scraped and cut corners until there's half a card left, until there's a matter of weeks rather than months left in it unless you're used to performing only the most basic of tasks and can stand the longer CUDA processing times.
nVidia obviously feels there's a market for this stuff. I learnt my lesson a long time ago not to be duped by the fancy sales talk, however. nVidia does make some good products but they also have a tendancy to produce junk, and that's what I think they've done here. The 200 seems OK but that 210 is a lemming in my book.
*220.
now if only you could SLI these midgets and get more decent performance
which is the better ati radeon hd4350 or the geforce 8400 gs
your opinions are well needed
I have the gt 220 and i think its a very nice card
i have the asus engt 220 with 1 gb ddr3 memory. This is a low-profile card and very nice for games like call of duty 4.
It comes with a few programs (asus gamer osd, smartdoctor and some other programs)
When i play Call of Duty 4 it runs max detail very easy. And on the Nvidia site it says that the following games are viewed good on card:
- World of Warcraft
- Spore
- The Sims 3
- Fallout 3
- Left 4 Dead.
I have played left 4 dead myself on max quality, and its very nice gameplay
related links:
nvidia site: http://www.nvidia.com/object/produ [...] 20_us.html
videocard benchmark :
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ [...] rce+GT+220