kyro2 vs geforce 2 ti

[firehawk68]

im choosing between a kyro2 (about $100 here) and a daytona geforce 2 titanium (about $135)

is it worth the extra $35 for a geforce2 ti? will there be BIG difference in how it performs in games like may payne, aliens vs predator, rtcw etc.?

i've heard kyro2 got great 2d, does geforce2 titanium have that as well?

does anyone got any tests that compares these two? or tests and reviews of either card? pleast post links.

one of these cards will be running with a 1500+ xp amd processor and ddr memory... sorry, no other cards available from this dealer (i know geforce2 pro would probably be cheaper)

any opinons welcome! i had pretty much settle for the kyro2 (since i work 80% of the time, and play maybe 20% of the time tops, im no real gamer... so i thought kyro2 would do very well for me and i can upgrade later to a geforce3 when they get cheaper... but then the geforce 2 ti is only 35 dollars more... so i'm still considering getting one)

thanks!

 

[BD231]

GF2 all the way, that kyro dosent have any form of T&L engine whatsoever.

 

[S0me1X]

for $135 you could get a gf3 ti200.... (i think it was $100 in hot deals some time ago)

I'm sure if you wait till after christmas, you'll find another deal for a GF3 Ti200

 

[firehawk68]

im in sweden where the cheapest gf3 goes for $200

 

[vedin]

http://www.8dimensional.com/PVRKYRO.html
That'll have every review on the net of the Kyro vs just about everything, and a whole lot of varying opinions. Note that anything above 60 frames per secong is useless, and the human eye can NOT tell a difference...provided the minimum doesn't go below 30, or not by much anyway. Frankly 50 is smooth enough for any shooter game in my opnion.

 

[Mingon]

<Groan>

<< Note that anything above 60 frames per secong is useless, and the human eye can NOT tell a difference... >>



Wow its been almost 2 months since this has been said, I really thought that was the last time as well. The eye can tell the difference from frame rates well beyond what most people assume. Once accustomed to 100fps going back down 75fps is noticable, 30 seems like its chugging along.

 

[vedin]

I've seen 120fps, and a constant 30, and I can not tell a dif. the human eye can not physically tell a dif above 30. Why? Because that is the litteral rate at which the eye percieves the world. Granted some things move too fast for the eyes to calculate. These things, however, do not "skip" like in video games, they blur. Also one must take into account that when talking frame rates that such a thing is never constant in video games. The minimum is usually about half the average, and the maximum is about twice the average. That is why 60 is a perfectly good place to stop at. It's minimum is around 30, and usually higher depending on the situation at hand. Therefore, so long as you stay above 30fps minimum you will NEVER see the scene skip. (Unless caused by some other outside force such as the hard drive accessing data and putting the game on hold, however no matter you video card this is always a possibility.)

 

[Windogg]

Get the GeForce2. I've learned a thing or two from the KyroII and I say pass on it.

The 60FPS argument is not from a physical standpoint (ie whether the human eye can see extra FPS). The argument is more for how much reserve power the card has when the action gets hot. A card that can do 60FPS on a timedemo will get bogged down in games where the screen gets filled with lots of textures. On the other hand, a card that can do 120FPS on the same timedemo would cruise through the same scenario.

Windogg

 

[damocles]

GF2 Ti- all the way.

These cards slot in between a GF2 Pro and Ultra. In general a GF 2 Ti will be significantly faster than a Kyro II

 

[ToBeMe]

Between those two.........without a doubt the GF2 is the only logical choice!

 

[CTho9305]

anyone who thinks 30 FPS is smooth... this should show you that you can in fact see higher (I hope you can!). if you're wary of EXEs, here is a qbasic file.

 

[BFG10K]

The GF2 Ti will significantly beat the Kyro2 across the board in terms of performance.

Note that anything above 60 frames per secong is useless, and the human eye can NOT tell a difference...

Then my eyes must not be human. Also, all those people who can see 60 Hz monitors flicker must not have human eyes either.

Frankly 50 is smooth enough for any shooter game in my opnion.

50 FPS is an absolute slideshow, especially in a game like Quake3.

I've seen 120fps, and a constant 30, and I can not tell a dif.

Well look harder.

the human eye can not physically tell a dif above 30.

Is your monitor refreshing at 30 Hz?

Therefore, so long as you stay above 30fps minimum you will NEVER see the scene skip.

Absolute rubbish. If my FPS drops ever drops below 60 I can immediately see jerkiness.

 

[Daovonnaex]

Not all games require T & L (most don't), so I'd go for the Kyro II. Of course, considering that you can get a Radeon 8500 for under $200 sometimes...

 

[CTho9305]

<< The GF2 Ti will significantly beat the Kyro2 across the board in terms of performance.
Note that anything above 60 frames per secong is useless, and the human eye can NOT tell a difference...
Then my eyes must not be human. Also, all those people who can see 60 Hz monitors flicker must not have human eyes either.
Frankly 50 is smooth enough for any shooter game in my opnion.
50 FPS is an absolute slideshow, especially in a game like Quake3.
I've seen 120fps, and a constant 30, and I can not tell a dif.
Well look harder.
the human eye can not physically tell a dif above 30.
Is your monitor refreshing at 30 Hz?
Therefore, so long as you stay above 30fps minimum you will NEVER see the scene skip.
Absolute rubbish. If my FPS drops ever drops below 60 I can immediately see jerkiness. >>



just look at the files I posted. if you're not convinced, you should have your eyes checked. it is BLANTANT. 30fps sucks

 

[Mingon]

It just amazes me that people believe the eye can only see 30 frames per second, I personally spend a lot of time doing 2d work at a laptop, when then going back to watching 50/60 hz tv's can see the flicker quite easily. This topic annoys the hell out of me, each time it occurs :|

 

[Rand]

<< Not all games require T & L (most don't), so I'd go for the Kyro II. Of course, considering that you can get a Radeon 8500 for under $200 sometimes... >>



Require T&L?
I hope you mean support T&L, because I know of absolutely no games that require hardware T&L to run.

 

[vedin]

Who here watches TV? Think it's skippy? 30 frames per second is what it's putting out. Program didn't work, some DOS error. Personally, I think you are WAY too picky. The 1.2% more smootheness, (is that a word?), you gain from 100 more frames can't possibly be worth the trouble can it? And I've played Quake 3 at 50fps, and it looked totally smooth. There were times were a bunch of flak would hit the screen and it would skip for like a nanosecond, but geeze, I was running a k6-2 500. But just to check, I'm going to run UT at minimal settings to see a really high frame rate and compare it to the 50 average I'm comfortable with now and see if I can tell a difference between them.

 

[MasterHoss]

Stay away from KryoII...it sounded promising at first but I've seen it in action and I'm not impressed at all. DEFINATELY go GeForce2 Ti between the 2...also consider the Radeon LE (I believe that's the card that can be turned into the real deal Radeon but someone correct if wrong!!).

 

[Daovonnaex]

<< Who here watches TV? Think it's skippy? 30 frames per second is what it's putting out. Program didn't work, some DOS error. Personally, I think you are WAY too picky. The 1.2% more smootheness, (is that a word?), you gain from 100 more frames can't possibly be worth the trouble can it? And I've played Quake 3 at 50fps, and it looked totally smooth. There were times were a bunch of flak would hit the screen and it would skip for like a nanosecond, but geeze, I was running a k6-2 500. But just to check, I'm going to run UT at minimal settings to see a really high frame rate and compare it to the 50 average I'm comfortable with now and see if I can tell a difference between them. >>

TV is 24 fps on the NTSC standard, 31 on the PAL standard.

 

[vedin]

24? Even better. Sorry guys, only time in UT the scene even started to look remotely sluggish was when it hit around the mid 30s. It was deffinately not a slide show even then though, and deffinately playable. Shoulda had v-synch on though to make sure that wasn't the only thing making it look slugish when I looked around slowly. I did have a few hard drive skips though. Shoulda closed out AOL first I guess. ::Shrugs:: And no, "Oh, that explains it, he's an AOL user" comments. I'm only using it for roleplaying purposes. Think of it as the biggest MUD on Earth.

Edit: Although something did just come to mind. It could just be me, but 60frames on my brother's Kyro II, to me, just somehow doesn't look nearly as smooth as 60 on my V4. I've also seen S3 cards put out what they claimed to be 80+ frames that looked like slide shows. Could it be true that not all frame rates are built equal? I.E. it takes 20 more fps on computer B than computer A to look the same?

 

[BFG10K]

Who here watches TV? Think it's skippy?

Who here watches TVs with motion blur and with absolutely no interaction with the displayed scene? Everyone. And even with that some people can still see jerkiness and flickering.

Program didn't work, some DOS error.

LOL! I didn't expect that response. LOL!

Personally, I think you are WAY too picky.

Personally I don't you have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

And I've played Quake 3 at 50fps, and it looked totally smooth.

60 FPS looked totally smooth to me until I saw 120 FPS. Well actually I always thought 60 FPS was jerky even before I saw anything higher but I was still surprised how much smoother 120 FPS was.

Also, do you think that you couldn't see a 50 Hz monitor flicker? Because I bet everyone else in this forum could.

Could it be true that not all frame rates are built equal? I.E. it takes 20 more fps on computer B than computer A to look the same?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Mingon]

Wow I didnt think he could put himself further up sh*t creek with out a paddle but vedin is managing on wind power I think.

lets not even bother discussing tv, most 'sane' people know about the interlacing, but we will let you off for not knowing about motion blur as thats something they only teach when the hair starts to grow.

 

[CraigRT]

there is no comparison between Kyro2 and GF2Ti

the Ti will as* rap* it ...



<< I've seen 120fps, and a constant 30, and I can not tell a dif. >>



haha! that's got to suck...the more, the better.. i love playing Q3 with 150-200 FPS, it's NOT as good with FPS under 100. NOTICEABLE.

 

[vedin]

Mingon, please, the implication of a swear word is every bit as bad as just saying it. Knew all about TV blurring, that's what happens in real life. Things move fast, they blur. Darn, I miss 3DFX. They actually had a motion blur technology. Shame I never got to see it for myself. The error was there, didn't record it, but if you MUST know exactly what happened I can download it again. (Deleted it already cuz I'm a clean hard drive fanatic.) Flickering on TV is it's screen refresh, and frankly, it kills my eyes. That's why you aren't supposed to watch it in the dark, or too close, it's bad for the brightest light in the room to flicker. Of course I can see the difference in a refresh rate of 50 hz and higher. 60 makes my eyes bleed, 70 is bearable for short periods, 72 is borderline, 75 is good for around 5 hours at a time, and 85+ looks totally solid forever to me. And no, can't tell a difference in 85 and over 100 there either. Which isn't really a bad thing. All that it means is that my eyes aren't as sensitive to it as others. And I thought I made the question of frame rates very clearly, but I will try again.

On my computer let's say I get 50 frames average. On my brother's computer I get 50 as well. To me, mine looks MUCH smoother at the same frame rate. In fact, I have seen 50 average on mine look smoother than 60 on his. His min frame rate was still higher, but it seemed to me that it skipped a LOT more in some situations. If you don't believe me, then that is your concern. I only know what I have seen.

Quick Edit: Well, seeing as this has nothing to do with a Kyro or a GF2 TI annymore, I'd appreciate annyone that has any usefull input on what I'm talking about to either PM me, or we could just take it to another room. I hate spamming up a message, and therfore this will be my last post in this one.

 

[Rocketman1960]

If you look at what the Kyro 2 folk did, it is amazing.

I bought the Geforce 2 Ti because I think it is more powerful but this is mostly due to Nvidia's reputation (they good) and I didn't want to have driver issues and compatibility issues because it was for my friends computer I am building (aah, but it is now in my computer, spank me)

Nevertheless, the only reason really for going with the Geforce 2 Ti is the texture and lighting hardware support not in the Kyro 2, the card is from what I've seen actually faster other things being equal

But wait until their next generation >===============>R is for Rockets