6100 integrated vs. 9550se 128mb

fade2green514

fade2green514

Active Member
well one comp has 512mb system and 128mb 9550se...
others got 1024mb w/ 6100 integrated graphics...
which one would perform better in games? i dont even know how many pixel pipelines the 6100has...
 
i have the 6100 and a gig of ram but its really 992mb of ram because its onboard to give you an idea i can play bf2 800x600 all low except textures on medium with 40fps

I can't speak for the 9550se personally but after looking it up on google I'd say you'd be better off with onboard especially with the extra 512mb of ram
 
fade2green514 said:
i dont even know how many pixel pipelines the 6100has...
Click to expand...

Although the integrated graphics cores from NVIDIA have numeric markings close to 6200, their performance is far inferior to that of the GeForce 6200. This comes just from the architectural features of the GeForce 6150 and GeForce 6100 – although compatible with DirectX 9.0c and Shader Model 3.0, these cores have only 2 pixel pipelines and 1 vertex shader. So, the GeForce 6150 and 6100 do not try to compete even with low-end GeForce 6 series cards in terms of performance
 
The 9550SE is far better performance wise, however it doesn't offer some of the newer features that the 6100 does. So if you want gaming performance, go with the 9550. If you want better video quality and image quality (not that theres much difference), go with the 6100.
 
well the reason i asked was because i built my aunt a computer some years ago and my cuzins play some considerably old games like ut2004 and then just runescape and such... and they have a 9550se. now she wants another computer, only her budget is much lower so i decided to put a 6100 in it. as long as my cuzins dont notice a huge difference i guess im okay... oh, and not only is her budget lower but this time she wanted an LCD.
LOL yea, and i still kept it upgradable... AM2 and 4x240pin sockets... lol not to mention pci-e

lol spent $750 before on a 9550se, 754mobo, and a64 3200+...
now i spent $550 and got a 3500+ (lowest grade a64 for AM2) 17" LCD, wireless desktop, but integrated graphics.

btw the x550 performs SLIGHTLY higher than the 6100, but my aunt (you know, the one with the money) wont notice if the graphics suck.
 
Last edited:
well me too duhh but this is just for my aunt and her kids... so it doesnt have to be amazing...
yea i went with the 6100. another thing i really considered was an x700 for $78 but nahh, they dont really need it.
i mean the things got a gig of ram, upgradable of course... and a pci-e slot, not to mention socket AM2.
the specs arent amazing but the motherboard is definitely future-proof.
 
The 9550SE is 64bit card, it should perform better than 6100 but not by a lot. (I'm not sure about that)
6100 has newer features


Personally, I would go with "1024mb w/ 6100 integrated graphics"
 
maroon1 said:
The 9550SE is 64bit card, it should perform better than 6100 but not by a lot. (I'm not sure about that)
6100 has newer features


Personally, I would go with "1024mb w/ 6100 integrated graphics"
Click to expand...


you know the 6100 isnt 64 or 128bit right lol... it doesnt have any memory integrated on it.

yea, it wasnt really a debate of what i should get, because now they've got a computer with 512 ddr400 and a 9550se 128mb and a computer with 1024mb ddr2 667 and a 6100 integrated graphics card...
of course they're both AMD based with hypertransport, but ones 754 and ones AM2...
i mean personally i think AMD's motherboards design is WAY better.. hypertransport >>>>fsb
so basically it'll be way upgradable for the future, even though the specs arent amazing to start off.

i mean to tell you the truth, my little cuzin will just be playing runescape haha... he won't need barely any graphics power at all..
but he does play the occassional halo and ut2004, but those are a bit older so w/e
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top