Kyro II or Geforce II Pro?

[jbirney]

I have a k2 on a 1.2 Ghz AMD. My main game is CS. I run 800x600 x4 FSAA with the FPS staying at my cap a good majority of the time. Every now and then it dose drop. But I have not seen it go below 50s in any situation after I applied the above patch. Befor that patch, when some one use a Flash Light, I got an amazing 18 FPS Kristof over at B3D (who now works for the Imag Tech makers of the K2) has said that these as well as other issues will be fixed with their next driver relase.


I have also played alot of Chaos UT (Chaos is the mod for UT) on line with this card. I have not seen any slow downs. Right now running in D3D for UT keeping FPS in the 60 to 50 (settings are 1024x768x32 x2 FSAA) a good chuck of the time.

In all for only 120 (what I paid for the card), it is not bad at all.

 

[dfloyd]

Ok you guys who are slowing down with the Kyro II in Counter Strike.

Are you using OpenGL or D3D? I got this slow down on my radeon in D3D and I am just wanting to see if that could be the issue.

Also for all you Nivida guys out there. I see alot of people complaining about WinME performance. The only similiarity is they are all using Nividia cards. This worries me a bit as WinME is now my platform of choice. (This may change with the new system but right now games get screwed up ambient sounds with my current Vortex II card in win2k). Me crashes MUCH less than 98se did and seems much quicker.

Thanks again for all comments.

 

[BFG10K]

PotNoodle

IMO, pretty impressive considering the cost of the card in comparison to GF3

Yeah it is good, but keep in mind that 800 x 600 (or even 1024 x 768) doesn't really tax a high-end video card. After all, I could run my games at 640 x 480 x 16 and say a GF2 MX keeps up with a GF3, yet that's hardly a valid statement.

Even a GF2 Pro can crunch through any game at 1024 x 768 x 32. You should be looking at high quality 1152 x 864 benchmarks (and above).

The Kyro2 is a good board but let's not get carried away about exaggerating how well it compares to a high-end nVidia board.

 

[PotNoodle]

?Yeah it is good, but keep in mind that 800 x 600 (or even 1024 x 768) doesn't really tax a high-end video card. After all, I could run my games at 640 x 480 x 16 and say a GF2 MX keeps up with a GF3, yet that's hardly a valid statement.?

Sorry, but 1024x768 is a very telling resolution, and GF3 should be absolutely killing KYROII at this point, and yet its not. Bear in mind as well that KYRO has not T&L engine, and yet this appears to be doing nothing as far as GF3 is concerned.

?The Kyro2 is a good board but let's not get carried away about exaggerating how well it compares to a high-end nVidia board.?

Ummm, yeah ? whatever. You asked for results and I gave them. This also illustrates that fact that the result that Anand got with KYROII displacing an Ultra in some cases is not just a one off case, it can be replicated elsewhere.

 

[jbirney]

dfloyd,

I am using OpenGL. With the current set of drivers the text in FSAA is not blured. Well some of it is, like the voice menu. But the HUD is not blurred at all with the k2. D3D is not that way, its blurred. I have found that the OpenGL drivers are faster in both CS and UT than the D3D so that is what I use...

 

[JKuz]

Hey bro forget about the numbers. Today's cards are going to run whatever you throw at them. As long as the frames stay over 30fps your fine. I'm new here but I've been building pc's for some time now, so I do have experience. I went with a gf2 pro, 2 months ago, no complaints here. Best thing to do is find a store where you can see both cards side by side and choose the one that "looks" best to ya. That's what's it's about these days. The computers we are running these days are so powerful, visual quality should be your concern not which one can do 100fps vs. 90fps. And your just going to by a new one probably in the next year anyway.
But if u still want fps tests stay away from UT, it is very cpu dependant, so what size processor u have will influence your rates. Good luck I don't think your gonna go wrong with either choice, they're both great cards and cheap now, so it won't hurt your wallet too much.

tbird 850@933
256mb crucial cas 2
abit kt7a
sblive x-gamer
msi gf2 pro 64mb
19" mon.
antec case & power

 

[dfloyd]

Yeah it seems that either would serve me well for now. Just wondering when Max Payne and the next big thing is released over the next six months or more which will serve me better. I am the last person to look at frame rates as the only thing about my card. I only compare frame rates to get a determination of how overall powerfull the card is. Hence how long it may be able to play the games I want without having to upgrade again.

Honestly I do not think right now is a good time to be planning for a long term card. Just not enough choice imo. Geforce III is way too expensive imo. And its a hard choice between the Geforce II Pro and the Kyro II (especially when you compare the dx8 scores of all cards but the Radeon and GeForce III) (Ohh and reason I am not going Radeon again, Unreal based games, its just too danged slow in Unreal based games). It seems pretty obvious that the G2 Pro is faster in the majority of situiations but the Kyro II really shines big time with FSAA on and 32 bit color. Not to mention its supposed to have better image quality. And imo Jaggies are the most noticeable thing about every game on the market. So its a tough decisions. Wish I knew someone in Franklin, NC who had both up and running Then could look for myself.

 

[richleader]

"Honestly I do not think right now is a good time to be planning for a long term card. "

Word! Really, if you have a geforcemx/radeonle+, and you're upgrading to anything less than a geforce 3, think again. Unless of course, you're impatient as hell and money grows on trees: Then get a geforce 2 pro.

 

[JKuz]

Hey I totally understand we're your comin' from. I researched my card for months before I bought it, that's normal. Also the longer u wait the less it's gonna cost, too. My rule of thumb is stay 1 year behind hardware technology. A year ago a gf2 pro 64mb was like $450, I picked it up for like $180. And software can't keep up with hardware, usually about a year behind. So by the time they make software for gf3 it will probably down to like $150. Every year spend $200 or so for upgrades, and you can't go wrong. I have been doing this for 8 years straight now and haven't had backfire yet. So next year around january we'll be writing about if we should buy a gf3 or kyro III for $150. But as for your question I can't say anything bad about my gf2 pro. It is powerful, takes anything I throw at it 1600x1200 full res. no prob., however display does get kind of muddy at 1600x1200. My only complaint but it's not even as bad as it sounds, nothing is perfect. Kyro II is supposed to look much better but has far less power. I don't know tough call.

tbird 850@933
256mb crucial cas 2
abit kt7a
sblive x-gamer
msi gf2 pro 64mb
19" mon.
antec case & power

 

[BFG10K]

Sorry, but 1024x768 is a very telling resolution,

No it isn't.

Bear in mind as well that KYRO has not T&L engine, and yet this appears to be doing nothing as far as GF3 is concerned.

You just told me that 1024 is a telling resolution and now you're discussing T&L, which basically affects results in CPU limited situations.

So which is it? Is 1024 CPU limited or video card limited? It sure as hell isn't both.

 

[dfloyd]

Well its not that I have money growing on trees its just that I am in the process of upgrading my whole system now. Max budget for a card is $150. I have pretty much narrowed it down to the MSI Geforce Pro 64MB card or the Hercules Prophet 4500.

Will be a couple more days before I order so I will keep monitoring the discussions. As long as the following games run smoothly @ 1024 x 768 x 32 with decent quality I will be pretty happy.

Black & White
Counter Strike
UT Engine Games (Deus Ex, Undying, etc)
Quake III Engine Games

The image quality and fsaa of the Hercules is sounding very impressive. At least from what I read. Of course the speed and mature driver set of the G2 Pro is equally important. I was a big fan of 3dfx, not just because of features but because every single game I wanted to play, played.

Thanks one and all for the continued thoughts. Am getting alot of info before basing my decision and I hope the thread is helping others as well.

 

[Shy]

<< I have a k2 on a 1.2 Ghz AMD. My main game is CS. I run 800x600 x4 FSAA with the FPS staying at my cap a good majority of the time. Every now and then it dose drop. But I have not seen it go below 50s in any situation after I applied the above patch. Befor that patch, when some one use a Flash Light, I got an amazing 18 FPS Kristof over at B3D (who now works for the Imag Tech makers of the K2) has said that these as well as other issues will be fixed with their next driver relase. >>



I personally run a GF2 GTS on a crappy Celeron 850. CS is my main game as well, and I run 800x600 4xFSAA as well. I should mention that it never goes below 50 for me as well.

Now, if with this system I get the same frame rates, does it not stand to reason that with a 1.33 tbird and a GF2 Pro you would get significantly higher frame rates?

edit: i fscked up the quoting... fixed now

 

[powervr2]

if the video card is the bottleneck then you will not get better fps...

 

[Shy]

a video card should NEVER be a bottleneck in 800x600

 

[powervr2]

with 4x FSAA it might...

 

[gygheyzeus]

For the price, the Kyro II is sweet (i've got one). But, when people say it has Geforce 2 GTS level performance, I have to tell them to stfu. It doesn't. Unless my T-bird 1.33GHz is actually a slow processor and everyone here is running around playing with their 8GHz machines. Yeah, thats what I thought.

Point is... don't expect the Kyro II to be the best thing since sliced bread.

Now, on the other hand, if there are tweaks, and new drivers being released for this card, and performance increases at least another 20%, you'll have me 100% happy.

 

[Chusher3]

I would go with the Geforce, better selection(more manufactors) and broader supports, great drivers

 

[PotNoodle]

?No it isn't.?

At 1024x768 you can see the scores have already dropped on both systems from 800x600 ? so even GF3 is getting fillrate limitations at this point.

?You just told me that 1024 is a telling resolution and now you're discussing T&amp;L, which basically affects results in CPU limited situations.

So which is it? Is 1024 CPU limited or video card limited? It sure as hell isn't both.?

Where do you think the T&amp;L unit is on GeForce3?? I was under the impression it was part of the videocard!

 

[powervr2]

to gygheyzeus do you have some numbers to back your's statement?

to Chusher3, if broader choise means lausy image filters (giving bad 2d quality sometimes, I prefer less broader choise... that way I don't get cheated...), my kyro 2 drivers are rock solid !!!
I am trying to justify to myself if it is worth to download the last ones (one day old)

 

[Mingon]

Powervr, the problem with the 2d quality as you say was the third party manufacturers who normaly sold the 'cheap' geforce cards, so my question to you would be do you think that the 'cheaper' manufacturers of kyro cards might suffer a similar problem ?

 

[BFG10K]

At 1024x768 you can see the scores have already dropped on both systems from 800x600 ? so even GF3 is getting fillrate limitations at this point.

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer on this point. I was talking about in general. Like when you look at gaming overall. There really aren't very many games that can tax a GF3 at 1024 x 768 x 32.

Where do you think the T&amp;L unit is on GeForce3?? I was under the impression it was part of the videocard!

Huh?

T&amp;L does not show a performance difference over a lack of T&amp;L if you're fillrate limited. That means that if you say 1024 x 768 is video card limited, you shouldn't be discussing T&amp;L.

 

[PotNoodle]

? Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer on this point. I was talking about in general. Like when you look at gaming overall. There really aren't very many games that can tax a GF3 at 1024 x 768 x 32.?

Well do you want to make your mind up now? I thought we were talking about Serious Sam Benchmarks ? as I said before there is some drop in performance between 800x600 and 1024x768 meaning that GF3 is already hitting fillrate limitations in this benchmark.

? T&amp;L does not show a performance difference over a lack of T&amp;L if you're fillrate limited. That means that if you say 1024 x 768 is video card limited, you shouldn't be discussing T&amp;L.?

You fail to understand the irony ? SS uses the OGL transformation pipeline, and as such it will use GF3?s T&amp;L unit which is part of the videocard, not a CPU process as you stated (the majority of the work is being done on the videocard. You are not ?Video card? or ?CPU? limited you are ?Fillrate? or ?Geometry? limited; in the case of GeForce3 both of these tasks are undertaken by the videocard.

 

[Remedy]

Damn this decesision is getting harder and harder....

 

[Ironduke]

Get the Kyro2 it kicks ass!

 

[Remedy]

Well i'll be kicking someones ass if it doesn't do better than this V5 in my win2k dual box!