what are you guys smoking? both my friend and I just got a Hercules 3D Prophet 4500. we both have different mobo etc and the card works flawlessly. i get 72 fps solid in CS and everything i have tried workes great you people must be doing something wrong.
RobsTV,
?The reviews and comments by owners of the V5 and Kyro 2 say enough about low end CPU's.?
What comments? What reviews? Show us some links please?
No reviews that I have seen have done any CPU performance comparisons with both a KYROII and V5, they have all been with GTS?s/MX?s/Radeons ? which all have T&L units. If people were reviewing the V5 now they would be saying exactly the same thing (it sucks on low end CPU?s), because it doesn?t have a T&L unit.
?The Kyro 2 doesn't perform at the same level that the V5 does. Really you need to compare the performance of the V5 using HSR drivers to the Kyro2 with it's HSR drivers. As to incorrect statements about FSAA, how correct is this??
V5?s ?HSR? drivers were nothing more than a gimmick ? they were there to boost Q3 frame rate numbers in a desperate attempt to sell more V5?s just before the company died ? Dave Barron, ex 3dfx employee and B3D webmaster (who you may have seen here) has said there was no future with these drivers. I think that if you talk to V5 owners now most don?t actually use this ?feature?.
When I used the V5 HSR drivers, sure enough, they produced beautifully inflated Timedemo scores but sucked arse when actually playing the game ? it was flickers and stuttery all over the place.
However, V5?s HSR was a ?software? feature ? it used the CPU?s branch logic to ?predict? if a surface need to sent to the GFX card or not, and as such is requires a heft processor to manage it is it is doing both the geometry calculation to start off with and then the prediction logic on top of that. KYRO ?HSR? does not exist in it drivers it is and integral part of the very nature of its design ? i.e. all its ?HSR? is performed in hardware, completely transparent to the CPU. If you want to look at KYRO against V5?s HSR drivers (which I would advise against in the first place) then in fact its actually the V5 that needs the higher spec CPU as it needs to do more work on the CPU.
?As to incorrect statements about FSAA, how correct is this?
"This means that where a card such as GTS needs a 1600x1200 worth of frame buffer space to perform 4XFSAA @ 800x600 KYRO still only needs an 800x600 space in the frame buffer." ?
It is 100%, utterly, irrefutably correct if you understand FSAA terminology.
?800x600 using 2X FSAA requires 1600x1200. 4X would requires 3200x2400 with a GF2, and would not work on the 32 meg version. You would need to get the 64 meg version if you wanted 4X FSAA.?
Wrong.
2XFSAA = twice the number of samples. In the case KYRO it either draws 2x1 or 1x2 (Horizontal res x Vertical res) the number of pixels; GTS does something similar.
4XFSAA = 4 times the number of samples. In all cases (bar V5 ? which uses 4 distinct buffers) this means 2X2 the resolution. 2X800 = 1600, 2X600 = 1200 i.e 1600x1200!!
What you described is 16X FSAA ? a horizontal and vertical stretch of 4X4.
?The reason the GF2 needs more than 32 megs is mainly to use 4X FSAA. If the Kyro2 can do it with 32 meg, why use 64 meg? Why not use 32 meg? To sell cards, that's why!!!?
Well, I already said this was a nice marketing feature for Hercules.
However there is a legitimate reason for using 64MB cards without FSAA ? and that is for texture space requirements. We?ve all seen Rev?s Quaver demo, this uses more than the 32MB textures alone, which even without FSAA is insufficient to fit into a 32MB card frame buffer. What happens when the textures are more than the frame buffer requirements? They spill into system RAM, resulting in the card needing to texture over the AGP bus, which results in a massive detriment in performance. Not that many game actually use 32bit source art right now, but as more do then this is going to increasingly become and issue, as it already is with some titles.
?The reviews and comments by owners of the V5 and Kyro 2 say enough about low end CPU's.?
What comments? What reviews? Show us some links please?
No reviews that I have seen have done any CPU performance comparisons with both a KYROII and V5, they have all been with GTS?s/MX?s/Radeons ? which all have T&L units. If people were reviewing the V5 now they would be saying exactly the same thing (it sucks on low end CPU?s), because it doesn?t have a T&L unit.
?The Kyro 2 doesn't perform at the same level that the V5 does. Really you need to compare the performance of the V5 using HSR drivers to the Kyro2 with it's HSR drivers. As to incorrect statements about FSAA, how correct is this??
V5?s ?HSR? drivers were nothing more than a gimmick ? they were there to boost Q3 frame rate numbers in a desperate attempt to sell more V5?s just before the company died ? Dave Barron, ex 3dfx employee and B3D webmaster (who you may have seen here) has said there was no future with these drivers. I think that if you talk to V5 owners now most don?t actually use this ?feature?.
When I used the V5 HSR drivers, sure enough, they produced beautifully inflated Timedemo scores but sucked arse when actually playing the game ? it was flickers and stuttery all over the place.
However, V5?s HSR was a ?software? feature ? it used the CPU?s branch logic to ?predict? if a surface need to sent to the GFX card or not, and as such is requires a heft processor to manage it is it is doing both the geometry calculation to start off with and then the prediction logic on top of that. KYRO ?HSR? does not exist in it drivers it is and integral part of the very nature of its design ? i.e. all its ?HSR? is performed in hardware, completely transparent to the CPU. If you want to look at KYRO against V5?s HSR drivers (which I would advise against in the first place) then in fact its actually the V5 that needs the higher spec CPU as it needs to do more work on the CPU.
?As to incorrect statements about FSAA, how correct is this?
"This means that where a card such as GTS needs a 1600x1200 worth of frame buffer space to perform 4XFSAA @ 800x600 KYRO still only needs an 800x600 space in the frame buffer." ?
It is 100%, utterly, irrefutably correct if you understand FSAA terminology.
?800x600 using 2X FSAA requires 1600x1200. 4X would requires 3200x2400 with a GF2, and would not work on the 32 meg version. You would need to get the 64 meg version if you wanted 4X FSAA.?
Wrong.
2XFSAA = twice the number of samples. In the case KYRO it either draws 2x1 or 1x2 (Horizontal res x Vertical res) the number of pixels; GTS does something similar.
4XFSAA = 4 times the number of samples. In all cases (bar V5 ? which uses 4 distinct buffers) this means 2X2 the resolution. 2X800 = 1600, 2X600 = 1200 i.e 1600x1200!!
What you described is 16X FSAA ? a horizontal and vertical stretch of 4X4.
?The reason the GF2 needs more than 32 megs is mainly to use 4X FSAA. If the Kyro2 can do it with 32 meg, why use 64 meg? Why not use 32 meg? To sell cards, that's why!!!?
Well, I already said this was a nice marketing feature for Hercules.
However there is a legitimate reason for using 64MB cards without FSAA ? and that is for texture space requirements. We?ve all seen Rev?s Quaver demo, this uses more than the 32MB textures alone, which even without FSAA is insufficient to fit into a 32MB card frame buffer. What happens when the textures are more than the frame buffer requirements? They spill into system RAM, resulting in the card needing to texture over the AGP bus, which results in a massive detriment in performance. Not that many game actually use 32bit source art right now, but as more do then this is going to increasingly become and issue, as it already is with some titles.
<<<The reviews and comments by owners of the V5 and Kyro 2 say enough about low end CPU's. The Kyro 2 doesn't perform at the same level that the V5 does. Really you need to compare the performance of the V5 using HSR drivers to the Kyro2 with it's HSR drivers.>>>
Firstly in which games are you talking about?, or am I correct in thinking that your talking about 3dmark2001? The only reason Kyro 1 and II are more CPU limited then any other non HW T&L card is because of the DX8 bug which has been fixed in the new beta build of DX8, this bug forces the system CPU to render parts of the frame when rendering into textures is used rather then allowing the Kyro to do that in hardware, this obviously wastes CPU cycles and so makes the Kyro 1 and II look more CPU dependent. Secondly Kyro II doesn't have HSR drivers, its performs HSR as part of it graphics pipline entirely in hardware unlike the Voodoo5 which uses the system CPU to perform its HSR which infact would make the Voodoo5 more CPU limited then a Kyro II once the DX8 bug has been entirely fixed and a new DX8 has been released.
<<<As to incorrect statements about FSAA, how correct is this?
"This means that where a card such as GTS needs a 1600x1200 worth of frame buffer space to perform 4XFSAA @ 800x600 KYRO still only needs an 800x600 space in the frame buffer."
800x600 using 2X FSAA requires 1600x1200. 4X would requires 3200x2400 with a GF2, and would not work on the 32 meg version. You would need to get the 64 meg version if you wanted 4X FSAA>>>
No your wrong, PotNoodle was correct. For a normal card like a Geforce when using 4xFSAA (thats 2X2 FSAA) the frame is drawn twice the y and x axis of the output res. Say the output res was 800x600 and your using 4xFSAA, thats 1600x1200, therefore a Geforce card needs a 1600x1200x32 framebuffer to perform 800x600x32 4xFSAA (800x600 = 480000 pixels x 4xFSAA = 1920000 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 7.7mb framebuffer). Where as the Kyro II draws each tile at high res and then downsamples before it goes into the framebuffer so it only needs a 800x600x32 framebuffer for 800x600x32 4xFSAA (thats 800x600 = 480000 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 1.9mb framebuffer). So for 800x600x32 4xFSAA on a Geforce it will use 7.7mb of video ram for the framebuffer and with Kyro II it only needs 1.9mb of video ram for the franebuffer. Now lets looks at 1024x768x32 4xFSAA. For the Geforce is works out like this, 1024x768 = 786432 pixels x 4xFSAA = 3145728 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 12.5mb framebuffer. For Kyro II its like this 1024x768 = 786432 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 3.1mb framebuffer. Now we can see why Kyro II's FSAA is so efficient.
pidge
<<<With Teasy, it is easy to see why he is pro-KyroII cause he has a PowerVR website>>>
You've got it the wrong way around there, I'm not pro Kyro because I have a powervr website, I have a powervr website because I'm pro Kyro
(or actually I'm pro Powervr which is the tech thats used in Kyro)
Firstly in which games are you talking about?, or am I correct in thinking that your talking about 3dmark2001? The only reason Kyro 1 and II are more CPU limited then any other non HW T&L card is because of the DX8 bug which has been fixed in the new beta build of DX8, this bug forces the system CPU to render parts of the frame when rendering into textures is used rather then allowing the Kyro to do that in hardware, this obviously wastes CPU cycles and so makes the Kyro 1 and II look more CPU dependent. Secondly Kyro II doesn't have HSR drivers, its performs HSR as part of it graphics pipline entirely in hardware unlike the Voodoo5 which uses the system CPU to perform its HSR which infact would make the Voodoo5 more CPU limited then a Kyro II once the DX8 bug has been entirely fixed and a new DX8 has been released.
<<<As to incorrect statements about FSAA, how correct is this?
"This means that where a card such as GTS needs a 1600x1200 worth of frame buffer space to perform 4XFSAA @ 800x600 KYRO still only needs an 800x600 space in the frame buffer."
800x600 using 2X FSAA requires 1600x1200. 4X would requires 3200x2400 with a GF2, and would not work on the 32 meg version. You would need to get the 64 meg version if you wanted 4X FSAA>>>
No your wrong, PotNoodle was correct. For a normal card like a Geforce when using 4xFSAA (thats 2X2 FSAA) the frame is drawn twice the y and x axis of the output res. Say the output res was 800x600 and your using 4xFSAA, thats 1600x1200, therefore a Geforce card needs a 1600x1200x32 framebuffer to perform 800x600x32 4xFSAA (800x600 = 480000 pixels x 4xFSAA = 1920000 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 7.7mb framebuffer). Where as the Kyro II draws each tile at high res and then downsamples before it goes into the framebuffer so it only needs a 800x600x32 framebuffer for 800x600x32 4xFSAA (thats 800x600 = 480000 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 1.9mb framebuffer). So for 800x600x32 4xFSAA on a Geforce it will use 7.7mb of video ram for the framebuffer and with Kyro II it only needs 1.9mb of video ram for the franebuffer. Now lets looks at 1024x768x32 4xFSAA. For the Geforce is works out like this, 1024x768 = 786432 pixels x 4xFSAA = 3145728 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 12.5mb framebuffer. For Kyro II its like this 1024x768 = 786432 pixels x 4bytes for 32bit = 3.1mb framebuffer. Now we can see why Kyro II's FSAA is so efficient.
pidge
<<<With Teasy, it is easy to see why he is pro-KyroII cause he has a PowerVR website>>>
You've got it the wrong way around there, I'm not pro Kyro because I have a powervr website, I have a powervr website because I'm pro Kyro
(or actually I'm pro Powervr which is the tech thats used in Kyro)I went from A Radeon 64meg to the Hercules Kyro II and I have to say..in quake 3 the Kyro looks better and runs better..Motorcross Madness 2 is a totally different story..The colors look washed but the game does run really nice..Just hope they fix the color washing in this game..
So far I like the Kyro just hope the drivers keep coming out and fixing little things..
So far I like the Kyro just hope the drivers keep coming out and fixing little things..
As regards to comparisons to a GF2pro. In the UK you could buy a Kyro2 AND 1Ghz axiaY for the same price as a GF2pro, there you go T&L problem solved!
Look based on the reviews and user comments on the kyro II, i see it as a hit and miss card. Some people absolutely love it and some people cannot stand it. There really isn't any middle ground from what i have seen. And for those of you who say that kyro II 3d image quality is superior to the geforce, i think you need to really take a good look. I admit, the images look bright and crisp and it looked quite "different" from my geforce. however, if i adjust my display settings and up contrast and lower gamma i can achieve quite similar results. The fact of the matter is that the geforce pro is a faster card across the board than the kyro is, and benchmark's prove this(i dont give a crap about serious sam because the geforce can already deliver smooth framerates in this game, and powervr2 if a card can deliver smooth framerates than an extra 10 fps doesn't matter now does it?)
?Look based on the reviews and user comments on the kyro II, i see it as a hit and miss card. Some people absolutely love it and some people cannot stand it.?
Ho hum ? yeah ok, theres legions of people going to be writing to forums saying ?Err, I sort of like it, but then I don?t?. People only really write to message boards from the extremes. That said I think you?ll even see people here saying they were about to give the card back, only to keep it a little longer and end up liking it!
?And for those of you who say that kyro II 3d image quality is superior to the geforce, i think you need to really take a good look. I admit, the images look bright and crisp and it looked quite "different" from my geforce?
Anyone who has actually seen KYRO?s 16bit quality will say its second to none ? there is no question that a GTS or even 3dfx and their post filters can get close to it; if you give it a shot you?ll see what I mean (I think the KYRO users do). However even in 32bit there is no amount of gamma tweaking can account for differences in texture sampling and perhaps multitexture/colour combine accuracy (not that I?m saying I know if there is any difference between one card or another or not ? however I?ve seen plenty of people praising the IQ so there must be something in it).
?The fact of the matter is that the geforce pro is a faster card across the board than the kyro is?
Did anyone say that it wasn?t? It not in the same price range though?
? (i dont give a crap about serious sam because the geforce can already deliver smooth framerates in this game, and powervr2 if a card can deliver smooth framerates than an extra 10 fps doesn't matter now does it?)?
Probably depends on whether you want to run FSAA or not?
Ho hum ? yeah ok, theres legions of people going to be writing to forums saying ?Err, I sort of like it, but then I don?t?. People only really write to message boards from the extremes. That said I think you?ll even see people here saying they were about to give the card back, only to keep it a little longer and end up liking it!
?And for those of you who say that kyro II 3d image quality is superior to the geforce, i think you need to really take a good look. I admit, the images look bright and crisp and it looked quite "different" from my geforce?
Anyone who has actually seen KYRO?s 16bit quality will say its second to none ? there is no question that a GTS or even 3dfx and their post filters can get close to it; if you give it a shot you?ll see what I mean (I think the KYRO users do). However even in 32bit there is no amount of gamma tweaking can account for differences in texture sampling and perhaps multitexture/colour combine accuracy (not that I?m saying I know if there is any difference between one card or another or not ? however I?ve seen plenty of people praising the IQ so there must be something in it).
?The fact of the matter is that the geforce pro is a faster card across the board than the kyro is?
Did anyone say that it wasn?t? It not in the same price range though?
? (i dont give a crap about serious sam because the geforce can already deliver smooth framerates in this game, and powervr2 if a card can deliver smooth framerates than an extra 10 fps doesn't matter now does it?)?
Probably depends on whether you want to run FSAA or not?
the geforce pro is $20 bucks more than the kyro 2. They are in the same price range. I'm talking about the 64mb one too.
<<<the geforce pro is $20 bucks more than the kyro 2. They are in the same price range. I'm talking about the 64mb one too.>>>
Where? The cheapest 64mb Geforce Pro I can find is some generic crap and costs $30 more then the Hercules Kyro II.
<<<The fact of the matter is that the geforce pro is a faster card across the board than the kyro is, and benchmark's prove this(i dont give a crap about serious sam because the geforce can already deliver smooth framerates in this game, and powervr2 if a card can deliver smooth framerates than an extra 10 fps doesn't matter now does it?)>>>
LOL, sorry but thats hilerious, your basically saying the Geforce 2 Pro can deliver a few more fps in most games then a Kyro II so its the better card but when the Kyro II delivers a few more frames then the Geforce 2 Pro you suddenly don't care about a few more fps?....talk about double standards.
Where? The cheapest 64mb Geforce Pro I can find is some generic crap and costs $30 more then the Hercules Kyro II.
<<<The fact of the matter is that the geforce pro is a faster card across the board than the kyro is, and benchmark's prove this(i dont give a crap about serious sam because the geforce can already deliver smooth framerates in this game, and powervr2 if a card can deliver smooth framerates than an extra 10 fps doesn't matter now does it?)>>>
LOL, sorry but thats hilerious, your basically saying the Geforce 2 Pro can deliver a few more fps in most games then a Kyro II so its the better card but when the Kyro II delivers a few more frames then the Geforce 2 Pro you suddenly don't care about a few more fps?....talk about double standards.
Well, IMHO, I love my Kyro II now that I've mucked around with it a bit more. It was a worthy replacement to my VD5, and it will hold me over til I feel like dropping $500 canadian on a video card.
I love how there are people who will only buy one brands product. I've owned 3dfx, ATi, NVidia, Trident, Matrox... probably all the major ones. Who do I feel is the best? ATi, but I still have a KyroII, not an ATi.
I love how there are people who will only buy one brands product. I've owned 3dfx, ATi, NVidia, Trident, Matrox... probably all the major ones. Who do I feel is the best? ATi, but I still have a KyroII, not an ATi.
Banana
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2001
- 3,132
- 23
- 81
<< ... probably all the major ones. Who do I feel is the best? ATi, but I still have a KyroII, not an ATi. >>
Where is ATI based eh? Oh--Canada!!
As for the heated discussion re: Kyro vs. GF2, I guess it's safe to conclude that:
A) If you're willing to sacrifice video quality and some of your soul, go with GF2.
B) If you're willing to sacrifice a little speed and endure downloading new fixes every other day, then go with the KYRO.
BTW: Why is everyone saying that NVIDIA is the "bully?" ST MicroElectronics is a huge European company. I think NVIDIA is the little guy here.
1YP
<<<) If you're willing to sacrifice a little speed and endure downloading new fixes every other day, then go with the KYRO.>>>
There's no way anyone with a Kyro II has to download fixes every other day or even every month, sometimes you can use a fix to get better performance like the SS patch but that patch wasn't only for kyro II cards and I think you'll find that lots of cards even the Geforce need patches and driver fixes sometimes (DuesEx ran like crap on the Geforce cards until they released a patch).
<<<BTW: Why is everyone saying that NVIDIA is the "bully?" ST MicroElectronics is a huge European company. I think NVIDIA is the little guy here.>>>
A bully (as everyone knows) doesn't have to be big, a bully can be any size. Nvidia aren't bullies because there a big company, there bullies because they bully people.
There's no way anyone with a Kyro II has to download fixes every other day or even every month, sometimes you can use a fix to get better performance like the SS patch but that patch wasn't only for kyro II cards and I think you'll find that lots of cards even the Geforce need patches and driver fixes sometimes (DuesEx ran like crap on the Geforce cards until they released a patch).
<<<BTW: Why is everyone saying that NVIDIA is the "bully?" ST MicroElectronics is a huge European company. I think NVIDIA is the little guy here.>>>
A bully (as everyone knows) doesn't have to be big, a bully can be any size. Nvidia aren't bullies because there a big company, there bullies because they bully people.
I've got a question. I'm planning on buying a Kyro II 64MB soon (hopefully) and I'm wondering if it would be worth it considering my current system (in sig).
<<<I've got a question. I'm planning on buying a Kyro II 64MB soon (hopefully) and I'm wondering if it would be worth it considering my current system (in sig).>>>
Yeah it would be worth it, with Kyro II you could play games at very high res at the same speed or faster then you play now with your current card at low res. Whether its your best option considering your CPU speed is another thing but it'd certainly be worth it, if you can then just get a 32mb Kyro II because there's not much difference between the 64mb and 32mb versions.
Yeah it would be worth it, with Kyro II you could play games at very high res at the same speed or faster then you play now with your current card at low res. Whether its your best option considering your CPU speed is another thing but it'd certainly be worth it, if you can then just get a 32mb Kyro II because there's not much difference between the 64mb and 32mb versions.
Personally, I don't mind downloading new drivers every 1-2 days if there is a performance increase in the games I play.
And yeah, ATI is Canadian. I try to support Canadian product, I guess I sorta did, since Hercules/Gulliemont (sp) is Canadian.
And yeah, ATI is Canadian. I try to support Canadian product, I guess I sorta did, since Hercules/Gulliemont (sp) is Canadian.
After doing some more research, PotNoodle and Teasy were correct about 4x FSAA, and I was wrong. Seems I've been running my GF2 GTS at 4X FSAA all the time when I thought it was at 2X. No wonder it looked so great.
The reason I messed up was because of a discussion I had with Ben Skywalker on the FSAA subject, and I apparently did not understand him correctly when he said 4x4 required a card with 64meg. The GTS card has 10 levels of FSAA, and the results I got at 4x4 were the same as at 2X2.
Here are the available settings for the GTS card, using the reg hack:
For OpenGL there are three options to pick from:
1.5 x 1.5
2 x 2 [LOD bias]
2 x 2
For Direct3D there are eight options to pick from:
1 x 2
2 x 2 (low detail)
2 x 2
2 x 2 (special)
3 x 3 (low detail)
3 x 3
4 x 4 (low detail)
4 x 4
Thanks for clearing this up for me, and I apologize for giving the wrong, incorrect info.
At least I now know my 32meg GTS runs 4x FSAA with only a very minor performance hit.
For Bloodshedder's question,
With a low end CPU, you need a card with great hardware T&L.
The Kyro2 depends on a high end CPU to handle T&L, and you don't have one.
In my K6-III @448 system, I replaced a V3 3K with a GF2 MX, and in many games the performance doubled, and that was even when now running them all at 32bit! But, it took 2 cards to get it right, and T&L was the key. The first card ran was no faster than the V3, so I sold it. Then I read that the v6.47drivers I used, had broken T&L with SS7 motherboards, and 7.58 were the best. Now games that used to run at 800x600x16 with options turned almost off, now run 1024x768x32 with options turned up mid way. Since CPU is bottleneck, 1024x768x32 runs the same as 800x600x16 with this card.
The reason I messed up was because of a discussion I had with Ben Skywalker on the FSAA subject, and I apparently did not understand him correctly when he said 4x4 required a card with 64meg. The GTS card has 10 levels of FSAA, and the results I got at 4x4 were the same as at 2X2.
Here are the available settings for the GTS card, using the reg hack:
For OpenGL there are three options to pick from:
1.5 x 1.5
2 x 2 [LOD bias]
2 x 2
For Direct3D there are eight options to pick from:
1 x 2
2 x 2 (low detail)
2 x 2
2 x 2 (special)
3 x 3 (low detail)
3 x 3
4 x 4 (low detail)
4 x 4
Thanks for clearing this up for me, and I apologize for giving the wrong, incorrect info.
At least I now know my 32meg GTS runs 4x FSAA with only a very minor performance hit.
For Bloodshedder's question,
With a low end CPU, you need a card with great hardware T&L.
The Kyro2 depends on a high end CPU to handle T&L, and you don't have one.
In my K6-III @448 system, I replaced a V3 3K with a GF2 MX, and in many games the performance doubled, and that was even when now running them all at 32bit! But, it took 2 cards to get it right, and T&L was the key. The first card ran was no faster than the V3, so I sold it. Then I read that the v6.47drivers I used, had broken T&L with SS7 motherboards, and 7.58 were the best. Now games that used to run at 800x600x16 with options turned almost off, now run 1024x768x32 with options turned up mid way. Since CPU is bottleneck, 1024x768x32 runs the same as 800x600x16 with this card.
RobsTV,
?After doing some more research, PotNoodle and Teasy were correct about 4x FSAA, and I was wrong.?
I know.
Heheheh ? sorry, couldn?t resist.
?The GTS card has 10 levels of FSAA, and the results I got at 4x4 were the same as at 2X2.?
4X4 FSAA is 16X FSAA ? the only reason its there is because 3dfx?s Scott Sellers shot his mouth off about their Rotated Grid FSAA and stated that to emulate their 4X rotated you would need 16X ordered grid to replicate the quality; NVIDIA promptly added 16X support presumably just to spite him. The mode is next to useless though since, as you say, you need a 64MB card to facilitate the huge frame buffer requirements, and also it uses a HUGE quantity of fillrate to do it.
The reason your 4X4 setting looked the same as 2X2 is because it was dropping back to 2X2 without telling you ? NVIDIA?s drivers do this.
?After doing some more research, PotNoodle and Teasy were correct about 4x FSAA, and I was wrong.?
I know.
Heheheh ? sorry, couldn?t resist.
?The GTS card has 10 levels of FSAA, and the results I got at 4x4 were the same as at 2X2.?
4X4 FSAA is 16X FSAA ? the only reason its there is because 3dfx?s Scott Sellers shot his mouth off about their Rotated Grid FSAA and stated that to emulate their 4X rotated you would need 16X ordered grid to replicate the quality; NVIDIA promptly added 16X support presumably just to spite him. The mode is next to useless though since, as you say, you need a 64MB card to facilitate the huge frame buffer requirements, and also it uses a HUGE quantity of fillrate to do it.
The reason your 4X4 setting looked the same as 2X2 is because it was dropping back to 2X2 without telling you ? NVIDIA?s drivers do this.
Yea,
I have seen that before. Good Ol drivers dropping back to the res it supports w/o telling the users. I remember FS and nVnews posting this as well back when they first reviewed GF2 cards. I am not saying its a bad thing, just would have been nice to tell the user that it did not have enough mem and it was dropping back. Plus the fill rate needed for 4x4 is huge. If you GF2 gets roughly 30 fps at 800x600x32 doing 2x2=x4 FSAA then you can imagine that at 4x4 = 16 FSAA that your fill rate would be roughly 15 fps. But probably lower than that as all cards would be cripped by the memory bottle next. Have you ever seen the x8 FSAA screenies of a V5 6000? Some lukcy SOB over at the B3D got one and posted some x8 FSAA shots. Dam pretty..although he never did comment on the FPS scores in x8
RobsTV,
gald to see that you can admit your wrong. So many people today don't do that when other people provide the facts.
Jb
I have seen that before. Good Ol drivers dropping back to the res it supports w/o telling the users. I remember FS and nVnews posting this as well back when they first reviewed GF2 cards. I am not saying its a bad thing, just would have been nice to tell the user that it did not have enough mem and it was dropping back. Plus the fill rate needed for 4x4 is huge. If you GF2 gets roughly 30 fps at 800x600x32 doing 2x2=x4 FSAA then you can imagine that at 4x4 = 16 FSAA that your fill rate would be roughly 15 fps. But probably lower than that as all cards would be cripped by the memory bottle next. Have you ever seen the x8 FSAA screenies of a V5 6000? Some lukcy SOB over at the B3D got one and posted some x8 FSAA shots. Dam pretty..although he never did comment on the FPS scores in x8
RobsTV,
gald to see that you can admit your wrong. So many people today don't do that when other people provide the facts.
Jb
How come the GeForce has to come up in every thread? People just have to throw mud eh? If I read correctly this thread was about someones experiences moving from a Voodoo5 to a Kyro2. How come people always have to say crap like:
GeFarce, trolling, "It must be your problem because it doesn't happen on mine", nvidiot, kytroll, "You must have done something wrong, etc, etc, the list goes on. Even worse is the fact that 90% of the time these damn comments arn't even used correctly or the person saying them doesn't know there intended meaning.
Now, I don't deny learning anything from these arguments it is just a damn shame it takes like 30 posts for anything to get accomplished and even then the original poster is dwarfed by his own thread.
Also, for like the billionth time can people stop bringing up the 2d performance of the geforce line? Hasn't it been identified enough times as a problem with each individual manufacturer, some being great and some being poor? I hardly doubt it needs to be brought up again but it always is...
*rant off*
GeFarce, trolling, "It must be your problem because it doesn't happen on mine", nvidiot, kytroll, "You must have done something wrong, etc, etc, the list goes on. Even worse is the fact that 90% of the time these damn comments arn't even used correctly or the person saying them doesn't know there intended meaning.
Now, I don't deny learning anything from these arguments it is just a damn shame it takes like 30 posts for anything to get accomplished and even then the original poster is dwarfed by his own thread.
Also, for like the billionth time can people stop bringing up the 2d performance of the geforce line? Hasn't it been identified enough times as a problem with each individual manufacturer, some being great and some being poor? I hardly doubt it needs to be brought up again but it always is...
*rant off*
<<<How come the GeForce has to come up in every thread?>>>
Because of some Geforce owners that like to post off topic posts like:
"get rid of that kyro II. too much damn fiddling around with the drivers. get a geforce pro, better performance across the board and better supported. can't go wrong with geforce. kyro 2 still has compatibility bugs to deal with".
That was the post that brought the Geforce into this thread, posted by a Geforce owner offering advice that was never asked for by the topic starter and also genrelizations about a card they've never used.
Because of some Geforce owners that like to post off topic posts like:
"get rid of that kyro II. too much damn fiddling around with the drivers. get a geforce pro, better performance across the board and better supported. can't go wrong with geforce. kyro 2 still has compatibility bugs to deal with".
That was the post that brought the Geforce into this thread, posted by a Geforce owner offering advice that was never asked for by the topic starter and also genrelizations about a card they've never used.
"At least I now know my 32meg GTS runs 4x FSAA with only a very minor performance hit."
eh?? maybe your FSAA is being turned off at 4x too! how about nearly 75% drop in framerate for a very minor performance hit?
FSAA in the Radeon and Geforce2 is mainly a "waste of space". it doesn't look good enough to justify 75% frame drop. 2x hardly gives you image improvement worth writing about. I hardly use 4X fsaa above 800x600x16... that's why to me the KyroII was looking like the little step up from a voodoo 5, with only a 50% framerate drop. combine with this supposed nice 16 bit image quality and you've got something that can play yesterday's game very fine.
basically what we have to know is: framerates and issues with KyroII over a lot of games. I'm still waiting for any consensus on this. I don't take powervr too seriously. we need more than a mad portugese nationalist to tell us how Kyro II is getting on.
eh?? maybe your FSAA is being turned off at 4x too! how about nearly 75% drop in framerate for a very minor performance hit?
FSAA in the Radeon and Geforce2 is mainly a "waste of space". it doesn't look good enough to justify 75% frame drop. 2x hardly gives you image improvement worth writing about. I hardly use 4X fsaa above 800x600x16... that's why to me the KyroII was looking like the little step up from a voodoo 5, with only a 50% framerate drop. combine with this supposed nice 16 bit image quality and you've got something that can play yesterday's game very fine.
basically what we have to know is: framerates and issues with KyroII over a lot of games. I'm still waiting for any consensus on this. I don't take powervr too seriously. we need more than a mad portugese nationalist to tell us how Kyro II is getting on.
<<<basically what we have to know is: framerates and issues with KyroII over a lot of games. I'm still waiting for any consensus on this.>>>
paraknowya.com are making a Kyro II compatability list which will not only show if Kyro II works with certain games but also how the game runs too. You may not trust my opinion at all but I'm giving it anyway, the Kyro II is not somesort of Savage3d styles card thats hit and miss and doesn't work with certain games, this is a very stable and very compatible card. I play lots of games and I haven't found a game that doesn't work yet. I don't play only games either, I use lots of other apps like emulators. Again not one of those apps don't work with my Kyro II, I was playing the new N64 emulator Project64 recently and it runs flawlessly on Kyro II, its a sign of good generel compatability when a card runs little beta progs like Project64 flawlessly and fast.
paraknowya.com are making a Kyro II compatability list which will not only show if Kyro II works with certain games but also how the game runs too. You may not trust my opinion at all but I'm giving it anyway, the Kyro II is not somesort of Savage3d styles card thats hit and miss and doesn't work with certain games, this is a very stable and very compatible card. I play lots of games and I haven't found a game that doesn't work yet. I don't play only games either, I use lots of other apps like emulators. Again not one of those apps don't work with my Kyro II, I was playing the new N64 emulator Project64 recently and it runs flawlessly on Kyro II, its a sign of good generel compatability when a card runs little beta progs like Project64 flawlessly and fast.
Yeah, I started this thread as a KyroII / Voodoo5 comparison. Since I've never owned a GeForce, I don't care if its better or worse. I care about how good my shiny new KyroII is compared to my not quite so shiny and old Voodoo5.
eh?? maybe your FSAA is being turned off at 4x too! how about nearly 75% drop in framerate for a very minor performance hit?
No 4X is working fine in 2 games I tested. 75% hit?
The hit for me is about the same as jumping up one resolution.
Nascar Heat 1024x768x16
no FSAA 46.2fps, 787MPix
2x FSAA 45fps, 391MPix
4X FSAA 37.7fps 197MPix.
Nascar Racing 4 1024x768x16
No FSAA 34fps
2X FSAA 30fps
4X FSAA 25fps.
Most details are cranked way up with this test, so racing mode yields higher numbers.
Even using 2X FSAA is a noticable improvement in both of these games, and 4X FSAA looks better still. Perhaps in games like Quake or other FPS's the FSAA isn't as noticeable, but in racing sims, it does show nicely.
No 4X is working fine in 2 games I tested. 75% hit?
The hit for me is about the same as jumping up one resolution.
Nascar Heat 1024x768x16
no FSAA 46.2fps, 787MPix
2x FSAA 45fps, 391MPix
4X FSAA 37.7fps 197MPix.
Nascar Racing 4 1024x768x16
No FSAA 34fps
2X FSAA 30fps
4X FSAA 25fps.
Most details are cranked way up with this test, so racing mode yields higher numbers.
Even using 2X FSAA is a noticable improvement in both of these games, and 4X FSAA looks better still. Perhaps in games like Quake or other FPS's the FSAA isn't as noticeable, but in racing sims, it does show nicely.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter