Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark Vantage
To keep things simple, we've disabled PhysX optimizations in 3DMark so that we're honing in on raw gaming performance, not PhysX feature performance.
3DMark suggests that Gigabyte's overclocked GeForce GT 220 will indeed perform closely to the Radeon HD 4670, and that Gigabyte's overclocked GeForce 210 might fall a bit short of the Radeon HD 4550.
Of course, 3DMark is a synthetic benchmark and experience has shown us that its scoring does not necessarily reflect actual game performance. Let's see what the actual real-world titles have to say.
10
Comments
Sponsored
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. The 220 is far superior to the 210, good enough to compete with AMD's budget offerings whilst sporting some nice new features. That 210 on the other hand is the 'MX' of modern technology..you just can't fob people off with this junk anymore, in my opinion. Roll with the technology instead of repeatedly rolling out junk that can barely compete with yesteryear's products..
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 - cards supported the latest features only in name, not in performance. Same thing seems to be happening again.
I reckon even onboard video would be enough to lure budget uses away from the 210. nVidia has obviously skimped, scraped and cut corners until they're left with half a decent card, resulting in a very limited life-span unless you can settle for basic of tasks, very light gaming as well as longer CUDA processing times.
Alas, nVidia obviously feels there's a market for this stuff. But I learned my lesson a long time ago not to be duped by the fancy sales talk. nVidia can make good products, but they make recycled junk, and that's what I think they've done here. The 220 seems OK but that 210..it's 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