Greetings, I've been assembling a budget gaming desktop (socket 754, semprons) which should cost about $200+. I am aware that a dedicated video card is of course far better than integrated solutions but this time I am looking for integrated video cards suitable for gaming. So far, I've seen the Geforce 6100 which is offered on the MSI K8NGM-V (odd enough its a micro-atx form factor) and the Foxconn K8MB-RS, both of these are the only ones avaliable here locally. The second option for integrated solution would be the ATI X200 (RS480, Xpress 200 chipset). Only avaliable models here are the MSI RS480ML and the ECS RS482 M754. My question: I'm trying to choose over which integrated video cards are best for gaming, I've seen good Geforce 6100 reviews and I can't seem to find good reviews on the ATI X200. I really don't care about the other features of the motherboard all I care is the pure performance of the integrated video cards. P.S. Dedicated video cards are out of this topic, please focus only on the two integrated video cards. Thanks!
I'd say go with the GeForce 6100. My current rig came with ATI X200 onboard, and it was terrible, horrible, awful, crappy, and lots of other adjectives. :frown: So if you're looking for the lesser of two evils, lol, go with the 6100 since I can't imagine anything being worse than the X200.
Dang! I almost forgot the SM 3.0 on the Geforce 6 series! Thanks for reminding me, I will definitely get the 6100 over the X200. With every part in place I've built a $300 gaming machine! w00t, anyway thanx to everyone, comments from the video cards are always welcome. Thanks
iirc they are about the same for performance, one wins one bench, the other does better in other games my pick would be 6100 too, because early Ati chipsets also had horrid usb performance, even compared to sis and via
There are motherboards with Geforce 6150 avaliable here but they are quite rare and priced a little higher than the Geforce 6100 motherboards. But is it really worth getting the 6150 over the 6100 in terms of pure gaming performance (more fps = the better, not talking about features and quality).
im using a 6100 its a good integrated solution .. but it depends ALOT on your memory bus speed .. like i have a 400 bused 1gb and i can have 25-35 frames on 640x480 2x AA and shaodows off while others max and if i intall my other 1gb stick thats 333mhz makes my overall ram 2gb but reduces buss speed by 333mhz my frames in nfsMw reduses to 19-16 :s .. putt a 400mhz ram .. overclock the ram and get the most of it ... not bad integrated solution @ all
My friend has bought Gigabyte mobo but I cannot tell as I din't try games on it just yet, but I think 6100 is better. @main_shoby, are you getting 25-30fps in most games at 640x480 and does the fps drops to 10-15 at times. I am thinking of giving fary cry to my friend and he is having 3200+ with 512mb ram, it should be playable, I hope.
the 6150 is clocked at 350 instead of 300, or something like that (i could have the numbers wrong here) but as said before, go for good memory, be sure to run 400 mhz, and if you get a E rev cpu, it will also support mem speeds above 400, even up to 500 if your ram can take it (hint, Geil value ram is supposed to be very very good for OCing if you need cheap stuff)
Well a friend of mine brought down his +3400(2.19ghz) 64 with the Xpress 200 in it the other day, i didnt check specifics but i know it played the F.e.a.r demo and Timeshift demo quite well, lack of Sm3.0 and HDR probably helped that.
correction to drFreez ..6150 is clocked to 475 instead of 425 .. and .. in respond of Ankit .. sir ur right .. i do get 10-15 somethimes but i think having 25-35 frames in most games is just too much for any integrated solution .. im happy with that Vga .. it scores in 3dmark03 on 1024 around 1300 and .. on 640 around 2400 this card can basically play all games on acceptable frames ( acording to IGP ) dont know about atis .. this piece beats 5600 in games and most 5700's farcry is preety much playable @ medium high detail " on 640x480 " .. this card is good on this resolution .. use AA instead of resolution .. most thing on high and a few settings medium .. in farcry i get 35+ all the time .. i use 2x AA in almost all games
Why don't you just save up for like a 6600GT? If it takes an extra couple months it'd be worth to buy upgradible hardware then stuff that's totally not going to run anything in another 2 years.
Well that's a brilliant technic, 640x480 then 2x AA, infact I kinda like that cheap trick to get 60fps+ on certain games nowadays with my 9600XT (im actually getting smooth 50-60fps on NFS:MW @ 640x480 w/ 2xAA high settings). The thing is, I'm assembling this budget gaming system for my friend since he isn't exactly rich and he knows a little about assembling computers. So he consulted me and told me if I can build an extremely budgetted gaming system that can run new games even if it costs quality (low settings are fine!). Heck I wouldn't exactly buy that system over my trusty 9600XT . Just like to clarify on that Hpnotiq. Also he told me that he would buy a cheap dedicated video card once he has enough money. Anyway, I'd really like to see some more scores here and some comparison over the X200. I'd just wanted to see how these cheap solutions work @Lowbudgetgamer - care to give me some scores on benchmarks and average fps on games? screenshots would also be fine.
