Okay, I got myself a new E Machine and so far it is proven to be a tough little bugger. Now the question here is which is better my 256 meg X700 Pro or the motherboard based GeForce 6100 that is integrated with shared RAM up to 128 megs?

I've never even heard of that second card...

RAM is king, it'll make ALL the difference.

 

Erm yeah, so the ATI

Edited April 28, 200619 yr by Moose

It is an onboard video card. It seems to have Pixel Shader 3.0.

Integrated Graphic Chips are always bad. And a GF 6100 is a joke anyways, so stick with your X700.

Integrated Graphic Chips are always bad. And a GF 6100 is a joke anyways, so stick with your X700.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree. Never have a card that is onboard.

Is this personal bias or is there a bench mark data that hows that this is the case?

Well, according to this site, http://freestone-group.com/video-card-stab...rk-results.html , the 6100 is a bit better than a Geforce 4 MX.

What good is an onboard card if you can not replace it when it becomes out dated?

 

E-machine? Not going for performance are we? Those are cheap computers with out dated or cheap internal components.

And here's a review of the x700 pro... http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/vide...3211_3411451__2 .

The only advantage the 6100 holds over the X700 is the fact that it supports Shader Model 3.0 (as all Nvidia cards of generation 6 or above does). That doesn't matter much though, since its performance is much worse than the X700. You'll get "better" graphics from the X700 even though it only supports Shader Model 2.0. Better as in higher framerates, higher resolutions and such.

Is this personal bias or is there a bench mark data that hows that this is the case?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Onboard video is usually a bit of a pain in the ass to disable once you have to upgrade to a new card. Rarely are they worth a damn even new anywyay; the chips are primarily for noob computer users who only want basic multimedia features. If that's all you're expecting out of the machine, it should be fine. I'm unfamiliar with that particular chipset though. Maybe try Googling it?

 

Edit: Looks like Mkreku knows what he's talking about.

Edited April 28, 200619 yr by StillLife

Okie dokie, I'll keep the Radeon plugged in. I was just curious.

Listen to the Swede.

It's not bias to know that intregrated = teh sux.

Still I wouldn't mind seeing a benchmark review on the chips. To see the numbers themselves.

Basically, Hades, everything I'm seeing on Google indicates that the X700 PRO is the best choice here. The 6100 is way, way below the x700 in terms of performance...hell, the 6100 keeps getting compared and set up in VS. tests with completely crappy factory made integrated cards...and barely winning.

Maybe I am googling the wrong key words. If you have link I would appreciate it. I am going to keep the X700 in but I a kind of curious.

Nvidia 6100 benchmarks, or ATI x700 Pro benchmarks.

Basically if you order up all the graphics cards there are, every time there's a cosmic leap in performance it's based solely on having more memory.

Nvidia 6100 benchmarks, or ATI x700 Pro benchmarks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Both if you please.

 

Also what "Optimized" drivers are best or would it be better that I stick with the baseline drivers from ATI?

I think you should have looked a little bit more before buying this system Hades. There are better machines out there for around the same price.

Nvidia 6100 benchmarks, or ATI x700 Pro benchmarks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Both if you please.

 

Also what "Optimized" drivers are best or would it be better that I stick with the baseline drivers from ATI?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those were the key words I was using.

Basically if you order up all the graphics cards there are, every time there's a cosmic leap in performance it's based solely on having more memory.

There are different kinds of memory modules though. GDDR3 is MUCH faster than DDR or even GDDR2. A GPU with 512 MB GDDR2 is actually slower than the same GPU with 128 MB GDDR3. Also, unless you're going to use very high resolutions, you don't really need more than 256 MB anyhow (some say 128 MB).

 

Having a lot of memory for your CPU often has more of an impact than having lots of memory for your GPU. Type of memory matters more.

Okay, found the info I was looking for. Thanks LW.

 

Now, about 3rd party drivers...