Confused on Radeon 32meg vrs 64meg

[Sandan]

I read a review (Can't remember where) which benchmarked the Radeon 32meg almost the same as 64meg. Can that be? I am torn between Radeon 32meg ddr LE and KyroII 64meg. Reviews seem to vary on which is better. I have never been so confused over a hardware purchase. Any opinions. I run a Duron @900 on Abit KT7 with 294megs PC133. I play lots of games and use the internet frequently.

 

[LuciferHaze]

The 32MB RADEON is clocked at 166/166 while the 64MB RADEON is clocked at 183/183. The 64MB RADEON is reasonably priced and is faster then the 32MB version so it's worth getting.

 

[Rifter]

Or, you can get a LE like me, flash the bios, overclock it to 200/200 and have a card faster than a retail 32MB radeon and almost as fast if not faster than a 64MB Radeon, for under $80 Not all people seem to be able to reach 200 with a overclock but all of them get to 166 which is the 32MB defualt clock.

 

[Sandan]

Rifter, That is what I have in mind. If the Kyro 2 and a doctored Radeon LE are about the same I would go for the Radeon. My problem is I am confused over which of those 2 cards are the best to get. I can get the Kyro 2 for $110. at a local shop. It seems that the Radeon is better optimised for games of the future T&L and DX8 compatability. Is this true?

 

[powervr2]

that it is not true...
1º T&L can be treated by the cpu
2º radeon pixel shaders are only for cosmetic (this feature with radeon is so slow that no one with an radeon will ever enable it)
3º vertex shaders (kyro 2 or radeon don't have this feature)

so I guess that kyro 2 will be great also with directx8 games...
Radeon 64 mbs is slower in most present games than a kyro 2, I think that gap could be enlarged with more games with more complexity (overdraw)...

buy a kyro 2, great windows 2000/98 drivers, great opengl etc...

maybe even less problems in compatibility issues than a radeon...

about dvd kyro quality...

I don't see any ANY problem regarding kyro 2 dvd playaback (no frames lost, great image quality)

my system:
duron 900 with 128 mbs pc133

 

[Eug]

Well, the Radeon LE is only US$75 and the vast majority will hit over 180 MHz with a fan. (I'm running at 191 although 195 is probably fine. 200 isn't though.) The Kyro II is arguably better, but it costs 50% more.

They both seem like good cards although I haven't used the Kyro II myself.

 

[powervr2]

please radeon LE only have 32 mbs ..
there will be kyro 2 with only 32 mbs .. for the same price than radeon le...

 

[jobberd]

yeah well, until those come out and are priced equally there is no argument is there?

 

[AppleTalking]

jobberd: Of course there's an argument. You haven't been on these forums long enough, have you?

Anyway, the Kyro II is a great card for the money. It benchmarks faster than both the Radeon 32MB and the Radeon 64MB DDR. To say that there's no reason to buy the Kyro II just because it's priced higher is fallacy. That's like saying there's no reason to buy a $70 Turtle Beach Santa Cruz sound card because a $20 Yamaha will give you okay sound and costs less. The fact is that the Santa Cruz card gives much better sound. Granted, you have to pay a little bit more for it, but (as the old saying goes), you get what you pay for.

The same holds true in this situation. With the Radeon LE, you get a card that is not guaranteed to perform at the level of even a Radeon 32MB DDR. Most people have gotten there's to overclock fairly well, but who knows, the next person to buy one might not be so lucky. Suffice to say that the Kyro II is a sound investment because it's guaranteed power. That alone is worth the extra money to me. Add in the extra performance, and I think the Kyro II is well worth the extra $30-35 over the Radeon LE.

Nick