Tnt2-M64 slower than integrated graphics on Celeron?

[mlg]

When I asked about PCI cards at Sharky's, the answer was that the integrated graphics were actually faster than the M64-PCI(and that the ATI drivers would probably be a problem).

 

[Killrose]

What motherboard? Usually the Celeron boards are i810 intel with integrated video, that would definately be slower than even M64. But that even depends on which model 64 you intend to use. Ati? If it has on board Rage128, then I would stick with that. A much faster solution would be a GeForce MX PCI card.

 

[mlg]

I was told that the integrated were faster than an M64-PCI(which surprised me) and that drivers were better than anything from ATI(which I don't doubt). I'm not inclined to the GF-MX-PCI, because it tested out even slower than a Voodoo4-PCI at Thresh's, so Nvidia may not do PCI well-like 3DFX didn't do AGP. Plus I'm trying to stay CHEAP, because I'm trying to save up for a REAL gaming rig.

 

[gogeeta13]

the m64 would definatly be faste, i dont know of any mobos with onboard 32mb video

 

[TravisBickle]

ahem, M64 is an nvidia creation.
if you want a look at the terrible scores of both integrated chipsets and the m64, look at the newer Duron integrated board reviews on anandtech, not more than 3-4 months ago.
speaking as someone with integrated graphics myself... just read my lips
:Q

 

[BFG10K]

MLG, you still haven't told us what integrated graphics chipset you've got. The M64 really did suck but I'd be hard-pressed to believe something integrated could beat it.