will an onboard Nv6100 match my current Radeon9550(agp)?

The new on-board chip will support more video options but be less powerful so the supported features will not matter much.

Post the games you play.
Any on-board graphics will make just about any gaming rough.

Even $30-$40 for a low end card may get you by.

i am curently in the same situation thinking of buying a mobo like that don't have the money for a good video card so i will just wait and save my money for later
i want to put a am2 4000+ 1 gb of ram hdd 250 Gb and i found a realy nice case cheap too has a 120mn fan on front and 80mn in the back with a 450w psu

the integrated video it's preaty poor i googled something and i found it scores over 4000 points in 3d mark 2001 i saw even over 5000 point on a site so i am quite impressed

my frien has a gforce fx 5200 , sempron 2800+ 256ddram and he got less then 4000 points


i am thinking you can play world of warcraft preaty well, also has suport for hd decoding

the radeon 9550 it'a a preaty decent card i think it's better then the 6100
also the gfoce doesn't have it's own memory so it will eat 128 from you ddram

i am waiting for the hd2600xt i heared it's preaty cheap don't have the money now but hope i'll make the money

Perhaps you should consider a motherboard with the newer nvidia 70XX chipsets and integrated graphics such as:

BIOSTAR TForce TF7025-M2 Socket AM2 NVIDIA GeForce 7025 Micro ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail

"Good integrated graphics" is an oxymoron, but it does save money. Check out some reviews of the newer integrated offerings.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=475&p=9

Here is one........

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=2111&p...

It does appaer to work better.
It shows that none of the cards work with eye candy.

I would have been curious to see numbers with everything on low.

  the 7025 has tv out 8O goodiee  

It appears that the 7025 has DVI while the 7050 has HDMI, both have standard VGA. These are definitely aimed at HTPC users. For a desktop PC and LCD monitor with DVI, the 7025 seems to be the best choice.

I like how the PCSTATS review has a comparison with an 8800 card. Thats like Motor Trend comparing a Ferrari with a Honda Civic.

Thank you all for your help, but let me ask this question another way.

Where do the 6000 series nvidia cards stack up compared to the 9000 series ati cards. The links posted arn't giving me fair comparisons. I dont expect an onboard card to match up to an 8800, i want to know how it compares to my 9550

the 9550 it's far superior   you can play doom3 far cry at 1024 high quality with more then 30 fps but with the 6100 you can get like 10 fps which is unplayable
in F.E.A.R i think i saw 3 fps   with the 9550 you can play the game with decent settings

Yes,

That was really stupid testing :>
They should have tested against a low-end PCIe card.

Nobody is going to go "Hmmm On Board or 8800GTX".

They are gonna say, Hmmm, I wonder how much this $50 Card is going to help. How much more would $100 Get me.

Alternatively, they could have started tweaking down the settings.

OK, @1024x768 w/ Hi Settings I get 5FPS.
Unusable.

Now, Lets look at @1024x767 w/ Medium and Low Settings.
How Does 800x600 work?

The only point to me linking the review was to show that you would not be able to play these games with any decent settings and have the games usable.

They must have intended to show how well the 8800's turned out on each system benchmarked. But still, who really cares if you get 220 FPS instead of 225 FPS?

To the OP, how about give us a list of the games you currently run on your 9550?

Hey Primalminds 8)

Let me try to keep the choice as simple as possible for you:

Okay, so you are on a thight budget... so am I :wink:
If I understand it correctly, you are not a real "hardcore" gamer.
Neither am I :wink:

Look, I live alone, and I bought an appartment recently,
so you can bet that I am on a very "tight" budget.
I recently assembled 2 new pc's, one for me, and one for my brother.
Neither of us are real "hardcore" gamers, but just like you, we like to play some (older) games from time to time.
So I had to do some rather advanced research to balance between what my brother and I can afford, and what we would like.

After having done research for SEVERAL WEEKS for those 2 pc's, I can give you the 3 options which I had found for my brother and I:

Either you go for a mobo with an integrated videocard or not. :?

1) My first choice, which I chose for myself:
As there are VERY GOOD AND CHEAP mobos without an integrated videocard which don't cost any more than mobos which DO have an integrated video card,
I strongly suggest that you go for a mobo without an integrated video card, and spend some $50-60 on a basic REAL video card.
Even these cheap video cards will perform better than ANY integrated video card, pants down 8)
So, I chose for myself:
The ASUSTeK M2V (VIA K8T890) - ATX motherboard.
It has no integrated video chip, but it costs no more than a mobo with an integrated video chip: roughly $65.
The only negative point about this mobo is NOT a negative point:
It has only 1 SATA -2 port, which you will use for your hard disk.
Don't worry:
- It has 2 extra SATA-1 ports, which are faster than any hard disk in the world, so you can use those for extra hard disks if you like, with or whithout RAID-mode.
It has 2 IDE-channels for up to 4 IDE-devices, on wich you can plug your DVD-ROM and DVD-RW recorder(s).
And its VIA K8T890 chipset is VERY fast and stable, don't let the marketing speak forom either NVidia or ATI fool you... I know what I'm talking about.
Furthermore, the Asustek M2V K8T890 has a E-Sata connection to connect external harddisks, which is a lot better than USB2- or firewire-harddisks.
e-Sata gives you 2 advantages: It uses less CPU-resources, and it gives the possibility to monitor the health of your external harddisks, wich USB2 and Firewire do not.

Then, I went to look for a decent "basic" video card with a real 128-bit memory interface,
and I ended up with either the Radeon X1050 or X1550.
The X1050 costs about $50, and is roughly as fast as your Radeon 9550.
The X1550 costs about $60, and is quite faster, roughly as fast as a Radeon 9600Pro.
I went for the X1550, even though it is only a temporary solution for me too.
If you're interested, look for the following examples which I chose:
- Astustek EAX1050/TD/256M/A for the Radeon X1050 - $50.
- Asustek EAX1550/TD/256M for the Radeon X1550 - $60.
Both have a real 400Mhz 128-bit memory interface, and the X1050 has a 400Mhz chip speed, while the X1550 has a 550Mhz chip speed.
Both are derivatives of the Radeon X1300 (and so both have 4 pipelines).
The X1050 has roughly the same power as your Radeon 9550, while the X1550 is a lot more powerful, more or less like the Radeon 9600 Pro.
If you can afford $15-20 more, go for the Geforce 7600GS or the Radeon X1650... both are usually passively cooled too, but they perform a lot better due to their 12 pipelines (compared to the 4 pipelines of the X1050, the X1550 and your X9550).
And go for a passive heatsink WITHOUT heatpipes... heatpipes are marketing-speak, while being not efficient at cooling!

2) My second choice became the mobo for my brother's pc:
For my brother, I bought the mobo with the fastest integrated video chip available:
the MSI K9AG Neo2-Digital with the AMD690G chipset.
Compared to my mobo, it has 1 advantage:
It has all three VGA-, DVI- AND HDMI- video-interfaces integrated onto the mobo! A very interesting feature indeed.
But even though it has the most powerful integrated video chip available,
it is no match for a basic Radeon X1550, let alone the Geforce 7600GS or the radeon X1650, which are easily 2 times faster than your Radeon 9550,
while also passively cooled (go for versions without heatpipes!).
The other advantage of this mobo is that it has 4 full SATA-2 ports.
My VIA K8T890 mobo only has 1 SATA-2 port, and 2 SATA-1 ports.
But, as I said, even the fastest 7200rpm hard disk is slower than a SATA-1 port, so as far as I can see, SATA-2 is pure marketing speak, and not an advance in speed. And my mobo also has 2 IDE ports for up to 4 IDE devices, so either of both mobos I've been talking about have more than enough FAST disk-interfaces.


To conlude: We all have the same problem:
The most difficult choice always is the motherboard, right? :wink:
After having done research for several weeks,
I came to the following conclusion:
If you're on a tight budget like I am,
then there are very good mobo-options which cost almost the same:
- The Asustek M2V mobo with Via K8T890 chipset.
But then you will have to spend an extra $50-70 on a video card.
Disadvantage of this mobo: only 1 SATA-2 port,
but it has 2 SATA-1 ports, which are faster than any harddisk anyway,
and it also has 2 IDE-ports for up to 4 IDE-disks.
AND it has the advantage of having a true e-SATA port for an external harddisk.
- The MSI K9AG Neo2-Digital ,
see http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K9A...
which has the most powerful integrated video chip available.
This chip will equal your Radeon 9550, but don't exepect it to even equal the basic video cards of today, like the ones mentioned before.
This mobo has the advantage of having integrated video with all three VGA-, DVI and HDMI interfaces, and a PCI-e 16x slot too if you ever wish to replace the integrated video chip by a real vidao card.


I hope that I have been able to help you,
as I also had to do research because I am also on a budget.

Good luck!
Carl

Excellent advice. 'Nuff said.

:trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy: :trophy::trophy: :trophy:

Liar!  

but yeah even you're older 9550 will beat pretty much any integrated graphics solution

did i say more then 30 fps   sorry i was thinking on my 9800 :roll:
my friend has a 9600se he can play those games preaty decent
  i still think the 6100 it's beter then the fx5200