The Radeon is excellent in 2D, has nice gaming performance, and is a nice value. I'd go with a Radeon LE that is overclocked with Z-Buffer enabled[read the guide by anand on the Radeon LE for more info].
It includes a Kyro II 32mb and 64mb and a Geforce 2 GTS, Radeon, Geforce 2 MX and Voodoo5 with 8 games and appz benchmarked with and without FSAA. Note that the reason for such low 3dmark2001 results with the Kyro II cards is not all due to lack of HW T&L but because DX8 has a bug in it that makes the system CPU do some of the rendering in 3dmark2001 with Kyro II cards, this problem has already been fixed in the newest leaked beta of DX8.1 and will be fixed in the final DX8.1 which should be out this month which will give a large speed increase for Kyro II cards in new DX8 games.
Go with the Kyro2.
2D - clearly the Radeon is more superior, but at that res Kyro2 shouldn't be a problem.
Stability - both will work as long as latest 4in1 driver install to minimise any problems.
Gaming under win2k - this is a good reason to pick the Kyro2, because Radeon is not much a performer.
Future gaming support - depends on your standard.
Final words, go with the Kyro2, especially because of win2k.
With those 2 choices, the best for what you list is Radeon.
While ATI's driver support is very weak, it still has been around long enough to get the bugs out, and is now fairly up to date, and reliable. The Kyro2 is an experiment. Perhaps in a few months, when more and more is known about the Kyro2 card from everyday users, (instead of the few Kyro2 Zealots), then it may be a good choice. Another reason to not choose the Kyro2 yet is economic. Since it is fairly new, it's price hasn't done the drop yet. You know the drop? Both the GF2 GTS and Radeon dropped in price about 40%-60% in 6 to 12 months after they appeared. I hate paying full price, then seeing it for 1/2 that price 6 weeks later...
KYRO was the experiment, its plainly evident that KYROII is the real deal ? the fact that 12 manufacturers are building it, including the exceptionally well known retail brand Hercules (and jeopardizing their relationship with NVIDIA in the process) should be proof of this; the countless reviews we have seen praising it is also evidence for those willing to open their eyes. Saying it is an experiment is a seriously blinkered view.
? Perhaps in a few months, when more and more is known about the Kyro2 card from everyday users, (instead of the few Kyro2 Zealots), then it may be a good choice.?
Perhaps you might like to look at a few reviews; they appear to be liking it.
? Since it is fairly new, it's price hasn't done the drop yet. You know the drop? Both the GF2 GTS and Radeon dropped in price about 40%-60% in 6 to 12 months after they appeared.?
Advertised initial retial price for 64MB KYROII?s = $149; current pricewatch price = $105; seems like a 40% reduction to me.
KryoII!! The drivers are already more stable and perform better than the Radeon under W2K. The 2d at 1024x768 is equal to or better than the Radeon. The card is very stable ans so far has worked well with all games except GP3. IF does require a few tweaks here and there but all cards do at times. I would think that future game support would be about equal considering both companies are coming out with new platforms later this year. If it were me, I'd still go with a GF3.
I am in the midst of the same conundrum myself. I've managed to distill it down to this: 1) Price. The Redeon LE is 60 odd bucks, the Kyro II from Hercules is a little over 100. (although I keep seeing wonderful things regarding the Vivid!XS 32 meg card that I can't find ANYWHERE!) 2.) OS. It would appear that win2k is still a sore point for Radeon. On the other hand, if you are into Linux, there are currently (that I'm aware of) any drivers for the Kyro II, where the Radeon works like a wet dream. 3.) Game performance. The Kyro is a bit of a wild ride, it has fantastic highs in performance, rivaling Nividia absolute best, to barely being able to hold it's own w/ the MX cards. The Radeon is a bit less dramatic, offering a more average performance across the board, always above average. Look to the reviews of the games you play/plan to play, and go from there. I know this doesn't answer your question, but I hope it helps you decide.
Kyro 2 is no experiment. They have been perfecting tile based rendering for 5 yrs. Dreamcast is based on the same technology, just a generation or 2 behind Kyro 2. Drivers for Kyro 2 are better than what is available for the Radeon. I am a former Radeon user, I am now a Kyro 2 user and I do not regret switching one bit.
I run 1280x1024 32bbp 85hz, crystal clear fonts. Every bit as good as the Radeon was.
I have the same choice between a Kyro II and low end Radeon for a system I'm building for my brother next week. I decided to go with the Kyro II because of better 3D performance, good drivers, and the fact that its tile-based rendering will help it keep up with future games better.
I am the proud owner of a Kyro II, as many others on here. One thing that needs brought up though is processor dependency. The Kyro II's performance can very widely between processors. I'd recommend the Kyro II over the Radeon for any processor over 1 ghz. IMO, the Kyro II's only competitor is the recently price-reduced GF2 pro 64 @ $130 for price/performance.
<<<I am the proud owner of a Kyro II, as many others on here. One thing that needs brought up though is processor dependency. The Kyro II's performance can very widely between processors. I'd recommend the Kyro II over the Radeon for any processor over 1 ghz. IMO, the Kyro II's only competitor is the recently price-reduced GF2 pro 64 @ $130 for price/performance.>>>
I think 1ghz is a bit extreme, I think 800mhz or over it fine, also any CPU dependency will go down after the final release of DX8.1, I already tested the CPU dependency with Kyro II in 3dmark2001 with DX8.1 beta build 620 and CPU dependency dropped by 2-3 times (the high detail tests doubled and even tripled in speed at low res with DX8.1 beta build 620).