• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Kryo 2: General impressions. I think I'm going to buy one, input?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< I refuse to use 3d mark 2000 or 2001, it has has to be the worst benchmark program ever. >>


Most people whom make this statement don't like their results!😉 I agree, it's not the best B/M available......but then which is really that good? I B/M'ed with three different programs commonly used for B/M'ing and with four seperate cards so IMHO even if the results are flawed by a bad B/M'ing program, they should be consistant with each card tested and in each test run!🙂
 


<< Just a note:

My target resolution is 1024x768x32...maybe 800x600x32 if 10x7 is slow...but 10x7 is my target.

I play:
Diablo2
Starcraft: Broodwars
Warcraft2: BNE
Everquest *
Rune (Unreal Tourny engine)
Quake3
Halflife &amp; Counterstrike

(*: This will be at 640x480x32 4xFSAA since EQ gets small if you up the res...it uses 640 x 480 pixels no matter what res the screen is at)

That's really all I can think of at the moment....

I want the Kyro2 to run those kind of games well.
I'm not terribly concerned about future games much, I gave up trying to future-proof my rig. It never works and it costs alot more than if you just buy what you need when you need it. >>



For those games, your best bet is a card with good 2D. A ATI card would be your best bet, but a Kyro2 would also be good. Break the cycle of buying geforces, and save your eyes the agony.
 
Noriaki:

The Kyro II should be great at those games at that resolution. A GF2 Pro or Ultra is not worth the money if you're not going to be playing at insanely high resolutions. The Kyro II will give similar performance at 1024x768 without costing an arm and a leg.

Nick
 


<<

<< I refuse to use 3d mark 2000 or 2001, it has has to be the worst benchmark program ever. >>


Most people whom make this statement don't like their results!😉 I agree, it's not the best B/M available......but then which is really that good? I B/M'ed with three different programs commonly used for B/M'ing and with four seperate cards so IMHO even if the results are flawed by a bad B/M'ing program, they should be consistant with each card tested and in each test run!🙂 >>



First off it doesnt differentiate scores (properly) at least between 16bit and 32 bit etc, so people can brag they got an awesome 3d mark score because they ran in 800 by 600, 16 bit color.

The best benchmark is how it works in games you PLAY. If you play q3, then do the q3 timedemo. If you play CS, get a lot of action on screen and see how high FPS stays. Any other artificial means of testing preformance is... artificial.
 


<< First off it doesnt differentiate scores (properly) at least between 16bit and 32 bit etc, so people can brag they got an awesome 3d mark score because they ran in 800 by 600, 16 bit color. >>


LOL🙂 If I already bought the card.......why would I want to make it look bad after investing in it????😉 BTW, I ran each card in each test at 800X600 16 &amp; 32 and in 1280X960 16 &amp; 32! 😉

Also, I'm not saying it &quot;bombed&quot;.....I'm just stating that my results in all the tests combined showed it to be better than the Radeon &amp; MX, but falling behind the GTS &amp; WAY behind the Ultra........actually about where I figured it would and should be for the cost and make-up of the Kyro II!🙂
 
Oh yeah...as for price/performance I don't really expect the Kyro2 to be a miracle card...

It costs between the GF2MX and GTS, and I expect performance between them. In some cases, specifically Unreal the Kyro2 can pass even the GTS, but in general I expect performance between the two for a price between the two.

I like to spend around $200 on my video card if I can, and the K2 is the best video card without passing that mark to much. I'd prefer no to spend the extra $50 for a GTS unless it's a huge benefit...and I don't think it would be.

($190 + 7%)
 
Cool Noriaki!🙂
You understand what I was saying! There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the card! Exactly as I said, it performes exactly where it should, and by your description of use, it should be a great card for you!🙂🙂🙂 (BTW.....wnat to buy one) LOL! I have 7 cards now and four systems......🙁🙂
 


<<

Because it doesn't do T&amp;L doesnt mean its preformance is very impacted in games (for the current games out right now)
q]


no, i mean it crashes. the video doesnt intialize.
 
Yeah ToBeMe...I don't really understand the people that think the Kyro2 is a miracle card...costs between and MX and GTS and performs between them...seems about right to me.

The Kyro2 is the highest performance card I want to afford so I have my sights on it...I don't think it's a magical card that will perfomr like an ultra with the cost of an MX 😉
 
Noriaki, go for it.. you can be the Lab Gerbil!!.. but i would go for it for sure.. it is much better than the MX and cheaper.. can't go wrong there!!!
 
I don't see how you're going to improve that much over your V5 5500 unless you spend more $ than you are planning too. I'd wait till fall at least, by then the GF3's will be coming down in price, there will probably be a &quot;value&quot; version off the G3 (typical nVidia tactic) and RADEON II will be here, which ought to put more pressure on price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top