Kyro2 vs Radeon DDR

[JesterMania]

Okay, my friend is offering me either a Kyro 2 64MB or a Radeon DDR 32MB for the same price. My question is, which is the better card? From what I hear, the Radeon DDR is supposed to be a pretty good, solid over-all performer (maybe in the GF2GTS/Pro range?) while some say the Kyro 2 fluctuates (maybe faster or slower than Radeon DDR in certain games). So which card should I get?

BTW I'm also using Windows XP, are Kyro 2 XP drivers out? How are the Radeon XP drivers doing?

 

[Brian48]

The Radeon certainly has more features than the Kyro, but I found the Kryo much faster with existing games. Personally, I'd pick the KryoII.

 

[nemesismk2]

<< Okay, my friend is offering me either a Kyro 2 64MB or a Radeon DDR 32MB for the same price. My question is, which is the better card? From what I hear, the Radeon DDR is supposed to be a pretty good, solid over-all performer (maybe in the GF2GTS/Pro range?) while some say the Kyro 2 fluctuates (maybe faster or slower than Radeon DDR in certain games). So which card should I get?

BTW I'm also using Windows XP, are Kyro 2 XP drivers out? How are the Radeon XP drivers doing? >>



The question should be which video card would run better with your slow processor?

Which ever video card you get you will be limited by your cpu, in that case my vote goes for the radeon. If you had a faster processor or intended to get one then my vote would be for the kyro 2.

I recently had the chance to try out a Radeon DDR in my 1.3ghz Athlon and I wasn't in the slightest bit impressed by it's performance, my kyro 2 was faster at all resolutions with games like quake 3, unreal tournament, serious sam, max payne etc etc. The image quality on the Radeon was good though!

 

[rbV5]

Run them both and pick the one you like. My AIW Radeon performed very well with my Duron 650 and its performance should be similar, I've never tried the Kyro. Your friend shouldn't have a problem with a little trial run.

 

[Killrose]

The Kyro II does'nt scale well with low end CPU's. Ati is somewhat better. So in your case, as far as speed goes, the Radeon might perform better.

The Radeon 32mb DDR lags behind the GTS2, and is no way even close to a PRO. I like mine though and don't have any issues with it and Win98.

 

[Daemon_UK]

<< Intel Celeron 700MHz, SSE >>



Because of your low processor, get the RADEON DDR!

 

[sash1]

<< From what I hear, the Radeon DDR is supposed to be a pretty good, solid over-all performer (maybe in the GF2GTS/Pro range?) >>

You ARE joking right? The 32Mb DDR hardly competes with those cards. It's more between the MX400 and the GTS than GTS to Pro.


<< while some say the Kyro 2 fluctuates (maybe faster or slower than Radeon DDR in certain games). So which card should I get? >>

Normally faster. Although it does do bad in some games, but thats because it has no T&L engine.

But with your processor, I'd get the Radeon.

~Aunix

 

[bjc112]

imho GET THE Kyro 2.. even if the CPU is the limiting factor.... take the better card... and thats the kyro!

 

[BFG10K]

According to Anand's latest benchmarks the 64 MB DDR Radeon handily beats the Kyro2 in most benchmarks and I'd venture that the 32 MB DDR Radeon is not too much slower than the 64 MB version. Therefore if I was in your position my choice would be the Radeon.

 

[Zeeliv]

If you're talking about the benchmarks in his Ti lineup I wouldn't use those to gauge the Kyro II's performance. There's something very weird about them, quite a few of them are far lower than they Kyro II has been in the other reviews it's been included in. I'm not sure why, maybe the drivers were somehow screwed up or that driver version just doesn't match up to the others but there was certainly something wrong.

 

[nemesismk2]

<< According to Anand's latest benchmarks the 64 MB DDR Radeon handily beats the Kyro2 in most benchmarks and I'd venture that the 32 MB DDR Radeon is not too much slower than the 64 MB version. Therefore if I was in your position my choice would be the Radeon. >>



I did wonder how long it would take BFG10K to mention anandtech reviews!

BFG10K - Where does the Radeon DDR "handily beat" the kyro 2 in this anandtech review?

Anandtech review

 

[Crapgame]

700mhz Cellery-Get the Radeon.

 

[Danman]

Get the KyroII, I have one and it is pretty decent but a lot better than my brothers Radeon card.......

 

[BFG10K]

BFG10K - Where does the Radeon DDR "handily beat" the kyro 2 in this anandtech review?

I'm sure you're aware of the fact that ATi have updated their drivers a large number of times since the 13th of March.

Regardless, I'm not going to get into another argument over this. I've said what I think and it's ultimately up to the reader to make the final decision.

 

[pookguy88]

<<
I'm sure you're aware of the fact that ATi have updated their drivers a large number of times since the 13th of March.

>>



and i'm quite sure PowerVR has updated their drivers too, actually, i'm 100% sure they did, cause I used to have a Kyro II.

 

[BFG10K]

Fine. So take a look at Anand's 8500 review and let me know what you think.

 

[sash1]

<< According to Anand's latest benchmarks the 64 MB DDR Radeon handily beats the Kyro2 in most benchmarks and I'd venture that the 32 MB DDR Radeon is not too much slower than the 64 MB version. Therefore if I was in your position my choice would be the Radeon. >>

The 32Mb DDR performs 3-10 fps lower than the 64Mb version. The margin decreases between the two as the resolution goes up.

 

[nemesismk2]

<< Fine. So take a look at Anand's 8500 review and let me know what you think. >>



Well if the kyro 2 scores are accurate in that review then I willn't be getting a 2ghz P4 because my 1.3ghz Athlon is much faster!

Serious Sam 1024x768x32bit - anandtech=41fps - me=75fps
Quake3 1024x768x32bit - anandtech=71fps - me=103fps

Everything was tested using the max settings available in the game with sound enabled!

 

[jfunk]

Yeah, many people have said something went seriously wrong with the KryoII numbers in that particular test, however the radeon numbers are much better than they used to be.

The only problem with the Kryo is it seems to totally fall apart under certain circumstances, I think because of the lack of T&L. It seems to rock on certain games and suck on others.



j

 

[jfunk]

Oh yeah, the other thing is the Kryo is real CPU dependent....I think it'd be a mistake to run it on a cel700.


j

 

[JesterMania]

Okay thanks everyone! So I'm guessing from what I've read that most people recommend a Radeon DDR with my Celeron 700, but a Kyro if I get a new processor. So how about something like a PIII 1GHz? If I get that, should I still stick with a Radeon or will a Kyro 2 become a better solution in that case?

 

[nemesismk2]

<< Okay thanks everyone! So I'm guessing from what I've read that most people recommend a Radeon DDR with my Celeron 700, but a Kyro if I get a new processor. So how about something like a PIII 1GHz? If I get that, should I still stick with a Radeon or will a Kyro 2 become a better solution in that case? >>



Yeah a P3 1ghz will work well with a kyro 2, I used to have a 900mhz Duron and it ran all games really well. The good thing about the kyro 2 is that with every cpu upgrade you do you'll get better performance. I recently upgraded to a 1.3ghz Athlon because I started using lightwave (yes I use my kyro 2 to run lightwave and it runs it really well too) quite abit and I noticed a large performance increase over my old 900mhz duron.

The Celeron is alot slower than a P3 regardless of clock speed so going to a P3 1ghz would be a good move, however if you plan on upgrading your cpu then I suggest you get a kyro 2 right away!