How do onbaord 6100 grphics compare to a Geforce 6200, I am going to be getting a motherboard for a comptuer that currently has a 6200 AGP, and the new mobo will be PCI-E, and it will be a few weeks untill the new video card is bought. so im just curois how much worse it is.
Geforce 6100 onboard compare too?
- Thread starter Arm_Pit3
- Start date
fade2green514
Active Member
its worse.. the 6200 isnt good either. i suggest you get the new card asap lol
preferably something like a 7600gs or better.
preferably something like a 7600gs or better.
fade2green514
Active Member
i dont know exactly what you're looking for. 6200 graphics barely play games, so 6100 graphics will be even worse since they have no integrated memory. most people dont have the need to compare a 6100 to a 6200 since neither of those cards are meant for playing graphics intensive video games... instead theyre meant to have a dedicated low-end graphics processor to maybe play some Tiberian Sun or something...
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=457&num=1
theres a review, happy? lol now you KNOW it'll barely play games.
google is your friend
i mean the thing got 12.7fps in doom 3 800x600 low quality. its not meant to play games at all.
it'll play slightly worse graphics games, like UT2004 and most likely some other games... but not at respectable FPS or quality level at all.
its integrated, what more is there to say? its not great for games, and it sucks on system memory.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=457&num=1
theres a review, happy? lol now you KNOW it'll barely play games.
google is your friend
i mean the thing got 12.7fps in doom 3 800x600 low quality. its not meant to play games at all.
it'll play slightly worse graphics games, like UT2004 and most likely some other games... but not at respectable FPS or quality level at all.
its integrated, what more is there to say? its not great for games, and it sucks on system memory.
Last edited:
I dont want to know how bad it is in general, I would like to know how bad it is compared to the 6200.
And It can do better then "barly play games" BF2 high res med graphic settings, HL2 High settings, F.E.A.R low res meduim settings, or High Res, and low sett8ing with a few meduim. Thats to keep it above 30fps which is all you acn tell the difference anyways. But still that is illrelvent to the question.
Also, it does have intergrted memory, 128MB.
And It can do better then "barly play games" BF2 high res med graphic settings, HL2 High settings, F.E.A.R low res meduim settings, or High Res, and low sett8ing with a few meduim. Thats to keep it above 30fps which is all you acn tell the difference anyways. But still that is illrelvent to the question.
Also, it does have intergrted memory, 128MB.
fade2green514
Active Member
6100 graphics is integrated. it doesnt have any memory on it, it uses system memory.
ive never played BF2, but im sure that 6200 graphics doesnt play HL2 very well on high settings.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/02/08/nvidia_geforce_6200_turbocache/page10.html
in fact, there you go.
i can't find any benchmarks on a 6100 lol... that means dont get it.
im sorry i couldnt answer your question in amazing detail... but the answer is that both cards aren't really that great. i mean, i consider a 6600gt to be pretty bad/old.
oh! found a benchmark.
http://www.pcstats.com/ArtVNL.cfm?articleid=1966&page=8
it says that the 6100 graphics scored in the 700's in 3dmark05 lol.
compare that to the 6200 graphics... and its less than half as good.
the 6200 scored in the 1500's according to tomshardware... and in the 1000's for the 6200 with turbocache
thats the only benchmark i can find for you though... so the 6100 isn't really all that great. it'll run games on low quality if that depending on the game... as i said before.
really nothing has changed, ive just given you proof of what i said.
btw 30fps is cutting it. though maybe you dont game very often, a true gamer needs to find a balance between quality graphics and fps rate.
ive never played BF2, but im sure that 6200 graphics doesnt play HL2 very well on high settings.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/02/08/nvidia_geforce_6200_turbocache/page10.html
in fact, there you go.
i can't find any benchmarks on a 6100 lol... that means dont get it.
im sorry i couldnt answer your question in amazing detail... but the answer is that both cards aren't really that great. i mean, i consider a 6600gt to be pretty bad/old.
oh! found a benchmark.
http://www.pcstats.com/ArtVNL.cfm?articleid=1966&page=8
it says that the 6100 graphics scored in the 700's in 3dmark05 lol.
compare that to the 6200 graphics... and its less than half as good.
the 6200 scored in the 1500's according to tomshardware... and in the 1000's for the 6200 with turbocache
thats the only benchmark i can find for you though... so the 6100 isn't really all that great. it'll run games on low quality if that depending on the game... as i said before.
really nothing has changed, ive just given you proof of what i said.
btw 30fps is cutting it. though maybe you dont game very often, a true gamer needs to find a balance between quality graphics and fps rate.
Last edited:
Again, this doesnt anwser the quesiton, i was curois if anyone know in direct comparios between the two how much worse is ont then the other, and i get 30fps with Hl2, and thats not the 6200 i have btw. Bfg tech 6200 256mb OCfade2green514 said:
I already have the 6200 AS STATED before, and i am going to use the 6100 AS A PLACE HOLDER untill i get the PCI-E card.
What i am asking is how much WORSE is the 6100 in direct comparision to the 6200, becuase i will be usein it for a while, I except to get it on friday. I am curois to what decrease in gameplay will be untill i get a new card./
Alo sorry to break it to you, but the Asrock board im getting stated on the page it has 128MB of ram intergrated.
And the benchmarks dont mean much unless they are used in the exact same system and in the same situation.
Last edited:
Not on the same system,and not in the same situation, there it has been said twice.Ku-sama said:
as for the HL2 on a geforce 6200, here is a screenshot fof the reocmened settings for me, and i have only 1gb of ram in becuase i put the other stick in another comptuer, i normally have filtering on 8x, but i dont currntly have proof on that, so you can belive if if you wish, or not. IU had to make the screenshot smal and in gif to be small file size, but its still readable.
blah...the screenshot had to be jpg to get it to uplaod. should still be readbble with a a close look.
Attachments
Last edited:
fade2green514
Active Member
yea wut res does it suggest lol
even with those settings i'll bet it lags sometimes. my card doesnt even lag in 3dmark06. lol only for the cpu tests at least.
of course, im not suggesting you go out and buy a 7900gtx, i know i didnt spend MY money on the thing... i suggest a 7600gt if you want to get good quality gaming for a good price.
of course if you prefer integrated 6100 graphics thats fine too lol
even with those settings i'll bet it lags sometimes. my card doesnt even lag in 3dmark06. lol only for the cpu tests at least.
of course, im not suggesting you go out and buy a 7900gtx, i know i didnt spend MY money on the thing... i suggest a 7600gt if you want to get good quality gaming for a good price.
of course if you prefer integrated 6100 graphics thats fine too lol
Again, This is a place holder card, i am upgradeing!, I wanted to know how bad it would be while i had it. I'm sorry i can't pull 600$ out of my ass and buy everything at once.fade2green514 said:
You also bet wrong, it says steady at 30fps or better, if it didn't I wouldn't play that way Res=1024x768 the the highest, but on the high range compared to other settings and plently good enough for me.