Hey guys-I will be buying a new computer very soon and was looking at the Voodoo computers (voodoocomputers.com)My 2 options for a video card are the 1-Hercules 3D prophet 4500 kyro2 64 MB sdr video card 175MHz sdr ram and 2-Gainward GeForce 3 card expert Nvidia 64 MB-redhot-video capture/dvi. I read all the forums for the 4500 and about the no T&L and that the card will useless after a year or 2---i couldn't find anything on the Gainward GeForce3. Is this a Nividia card?? Help please--all opinions would be greatly appreciated--thanks lenny
the kyro is a nice choice for middle of the road video card.<br> The geforce 3 is top of the line. <br> Boils down to $
If you have to give more money for the geforce 3 you should save them and buy the kyro II. The kyro II beats both geforce 2 (gts/pro) and it have wonderful image quality. But the geforce 3 is very and there is a very good Tn'L engine on it but it to expensive. So save your money to the upcoming KyroIII.
Uhh..where is the proof that the KyroII beats the GTS/Pro cards? I've read that it only can beat the GTS (by an extremely slight margin, mind you) in very specific instances (i.e. when it is able to make best use of its tile-based shader). From what I've seen, the GTS will still beat it in all but 1024x768 with 4x4 FSAA on certain games (and don't include the Pro. Its 64MB of 5ns DDR ram vs. 32MB 6ns DDR easily puts it ahead of the KyroII, even with FSAA). Hardly seems like cause for celebration. At resolutions that high, you really shouldn't need FSAA. Don't get me wrong, I think the KyroII is a pretty good card, but don't go around making outlandish claims that the card can't back up. The KyroII is a great competitor for the MX, and can beat it in most tests, but it should not really be seen as a GTS-slayer. A good competitor, yes. Anyway, I'd recommend doing a search on the cards you are considering and read a few reviews (the more sources the better to try to eliminate as much bias as possible), and find the one that delivers what you want. If you play games and can afford it, get the GF3. You won't be disappointed. <A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s%253D200%2526a%253D7394,00.asp" TARGET=_blank>Here's</A> a good place to start. Plenty of information on the cards' strengths and weaknesses. Good reading.
my understanding was the the kyro 2 could take the gts as well. and at times challenge or beat the pro. Depends on the testing machine as well as the benchmark of course. And there lies the key. why compare the voodoo/kyro cards to the geforces on benchmarks that utilise features that 2 brands have. Yes ATI and Nvidia are the biggest card makers in the world, but few games/apps support t&l, nevermind the rest of the features. But the benchmarks slam them hard for not having it. Yes, they should have it, they will do better next time, and did extremely well this time.
The Kyro beats the GTS? THAT's a joke! Well, The Radeon beats them all except the GeForce3 and GF2 Pro and Ultra. My card <IMG SRC="smileys/knock.gif"> the competition to <IMG SRC="smileys/puke.gif"> !!!!!!!!!!!!<br> <br> <br> Wait for the Radeon II!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br><br><i>This message was edited by The 1 Tweaker on 05 Aug 2001 03:02 AM</i>
Well, I'm not trying to say the KyroII is crap or anything, but I have yet to see something where it can beat the Pro (games, too, not just synthetic benchmarks). Usually the places it beats the GTS are related to the KyroII's 64MB ram vs. the GTS's 32MB (i.e. FSAA). Now, the system would affect it quite a bit as you said, but the trouble is the KyroII would like a beefy processor, and those systems cost more. Those buyers will more likely opt for a GeForce3. The KyroII has some good concepts used in its design, but it's lacking in power for its pricerange. Any game/app that can't take advantage of its tile rendering will slam it hard and it will have to rely on what raw speed it has (less than an MX400). From what I hear, the KyroIII will be good, but the old wait for this, wait for that game gets old real fast <IMG SRC="smileys/smile.gif"> .
here pitydafoo is the proof that the Kyro II beats the GF 2 Pro and even the Ultra: <br> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1435&p=16" TARGET=_blank>http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1435&p=16</A> and this <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1435&p=14" TARGET=_blank>http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1435&p=14</A><br> Answer enough!!!!<br> <br> Go to hell nVidia
Um..by this it just shows that the KyroII does well with "Serious Sam". Did you happen to notice that's where pretty much all the tests where it won were. One game is not reason enough to say it beats the other card. It did win a few tests at very low resolutions (640x480), but most any card can perform satisfactorily at those resolutions. The KyroII's advantage there is it is able to run FSAA very well there too. So, it appears the KyroII is good if you were only planning on using a small monitor (but who wants to do that <IMG SRC="smileys/smile.gif"> ). However, just as I said, if a game can't use its tile-based renderer, the KyroII will get slammed in performance due to lack of raw power vs. the big boys. However, the KyroII is an excellent card in its pricerange. I understand that it is frustrating that more people don't consider it when it is an excellent alternative to the MX, and a great option to a GTS if you play the right games. However, I still hold that your saying that the KyroII "beats the GTS/Pro" is a highly flawed statement when those cards win many more tests than they lose to the KyroII.
<< Uhh..where is the proof that the KyroII beats the GTS/Pro cards? I've read that it only can beat the GTS (by an extremely slight margin, mind you) in very specific instances (i.e. when it is able to make best use of its tile-based shader). From what I've seen, the GTS will still beat it in all but 1024x768 with 4x4 FSAA on certain games (and don't include the Pro. Its 64MB of 5ns DDR ram vs. 32MB 6ns DDR easily puts it ahead of the KyroII, even with FSAA). >><br> <br> The Kyro II beats the GTS in allot of benches and not just with FSAA either.<br> <br> Here's some benches from a firingsquad review (http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/kyro2/default.asp) made a little over a month ago using a T-Bird 1ghz:<br> <br> Quake 3 HQ 32bit<br> <br> 640x480 64mb Kyro II = 143<br> 640x480 G2-GTS 64mb = 157.8<br> 800x600 64mb Kyro II = 132.2<br> 800x600 G2-GTS 64mb = 139.1<br> 1024x768 64mb Kyro II = 99.5<br> 1024x768 G2-GTS 64mb = 96.5<br> 1280x1024 64mb Kyro II = 61.3<br> 1280x1024 G2-GTS 64mb = 56.2<br> 1600x1200 64mb Kyro II = 41.6<br> 1600x1200 G2-GTS 64mb = 39.1<br> 640x480 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 123.8<br> 640x480 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 101.1<br> 640x480 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 71.1<br> 640x480 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 64.3<br> 800x600 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 87.3<br> 800x600 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 58.5<br> 800x600 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 46.3<br> 800x600 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 36.3<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 54.7<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 36.4<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 28.6<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 22.6<br> <br> Serious Sam 32bit<br> <br> 640x480 64mb Kyro II = 69.4<br> 640x480 G2-GTS 64mb = 86.4<br> 800x600 64mb Kyro II = 68.5<br> 800x600 G2-GTS 64mb = 79.4<br> 1024x768 64mb Kyro II = 64.4<br> 1024x768 G2-GTS 64mb = 59<br> 1280x1024 64mb Kyro II = 46.7<br> 1280x1024 G2-GTS 64mb = 35.1<br> 640x480 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 69.3<br> 640x480 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 60.6<br> 640x480 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 57.5<br> 640x480 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 43.9<br> 800x600 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 64.5<br> 800x600 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 35.3<br> 800x600 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 40.1<br> 800x600 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 22.6<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 47.1<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 21.3<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 25.2<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 9.8<br> <br> Unreal Tournement 32bit:<br> <br> 640x480 64mb Kyro II = 79.4<br> 640x480 G2-GTS 64mb = 77.1<br> 800x600 64mb Kyro II = 77.4<br> 800x600 G2-GTS 64mb = 74.6<br> 1024x768 64mb Kyro II = 72.7<br> 1024x768 G2-GTS 64mb = 68.9<br> 640x480 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 78.7<br> 640x480 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 73.9<br> 640x480 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 67.5<br> 640x480 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 58.9<br> 800x600 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 72.8<br> 800x600 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 61<br> 800x600 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 51.6<br> 800x600 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 24.8<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 58.6<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 27.8<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 36.4<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = N/A<br> <br> MDK2 32bit:<br> <br> 640x480 64mb Kyro II = 87.9<br> 640x480 G2-GTS 64mb = 167<br> 800x600 64mb Kyro II = 87.7<br> 800x600 G2-GTS 64mb = 152.9<br> 1024x768 64mb Kyro II = 84.3<br> 1024x768 G2-GTS 64mb = 106.7<br> 1280x1024 64mb Kyro II = 68.9<br> 1280x1024 G2-GTS 64mb = 64.8<br> 640x480 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 86.7<br> 640x480 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 111.9<br> 640x480 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 74.3<br> 640x480 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 71.2<br> 800x600 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 81<br> 800x600 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 68.9<br> 800x600 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 54.4<br> 800x600 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 37.9<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 63.6<br> 1024x768 2xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 35.8<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA 64mb Kyro II = 34<br> 1024x768 4xFSAA G2-GTS 64mb = 15.2<br> <br> As you can see the Kyro II dominates in these games at 32bit and especially at any decent resolution.<br> <br> << The Kyro beats the GTS? THAT's a joke! Well, The Radeon beats them all except the GeForce3 and GF2 Pro and Ultra. >><br> <br> I don't know which reviews you look at but the Radeon beats the Kyro II and GTS in very few games, look at the review that I posted those scores from (the Radeon is inscluded in that review) and you'll see that the GTS and Kyro II beats the GTS in just about every test.<br> <br> << The KyroII has some good concepts used in its design, but it's lacking in power for its pricerange >><br> <br> Lacking in power for its price range?? 40fps in Q3 at 800x600x32 with 4xFSAA and 46fps in SS with the same settings on a $85 card is lacking power for its price range??<br> <br> << Any game/app that can't take advantage of its tile rendering will slam it hard and it will have to rely on what raw speed it has (less than an MX400). >><br> <br> No game doesn't take advantage of Kyro's TBR architecture, there is no game that has 0 overdraw, its impossible.
<< I don't know which reviews you look at but the Radeon beats the Kyro II and GTS in very few games, look at the review that I posted those scores from (the Radeon is inscluded in that review) and you'll see that the GTS and Kyro II beats the GTS in just about every test. >><br> <br> LOL I mean "and you'll see that the GTS and Kyro II beats the Radeon in about every test."
Another correction to my post:<br> <br> << The KyroII has some good concepts used in its design, but it's lacking in power for its pricerange >><br> <br> << Lacking in power for its price range?? 40fps in Q3 at 800x600x32 with 4xFSAA and 46fps in SS with the same settings on a $85 card is lacking power for its price range?? >><br> <br> I just checked and the Kyro II is now selling for as low as $78 on pricewatch.com (thats the apollo 64mb Kyro II).
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Teasy:<br> <b><br> << The KyroII has some good concepts used in its design, but it's lacking in power for its pricerange >><br> Lacking in power for its price range?? 40fps in Q3 at 800x600x32 with 4xFSAA and 46fps in SS with the same settings on a $85 card is lacking power for its price range??<br> << Any game/app that can't take advantage of its tile rendering will slam it hard and it will have to rely on what raw speed it has (less than an MX400). >><br> No game doesn't take advantage of Kyro's TBR architecture, there is no game that has 0 overdraw, its impossible.</b><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><br> <br> I guess I didn't state that very well, I was meaning it needs to be able to use its TBR pretty heavily (as many shooters can) to be able to beat cards like the GTS. In something like a racing game, it won't do so well. The lacking in power I meant for games that wouldn't use its TBR, and in that case, the GTS is far better for about the same price, MX400 is slightly better for much less money. That said, if you do play mostly 1st person shooters (except for wide-open maps), the KyroII is an excellent choice, but if you play many games that can't take so much advantage of the TBR, it is not such a good choice. Simple as that. I just don't like blanket claims that are misleading. The information you presented is good and very valid, however, we have lost the original thread a bit <IMG SRC="smileys/smile.gif"> .<br>
<< I guess I didn't state that very well, I was meaning it needs to be able to use its TBR pretty heavily (as many shooters can) to be able to beat cards like the GTS >>.<br> <br> Not really, 2 overdraw is average for Q3, I wouldn't call that heavy overdraw at all and its less then most games as Q3 uses built in SW HSR to reduce overdraw for all cards.<br> <br> << In something like a racing game, it won't do so well. >><br> <br> It depends on the racer and the design. Just think about a racer using cockpit view, the overdraw there must be large as everything behind the dashboard is overdraw. It also depends on what you mean by not so well, I've seen benchmarks for Kyro II in a racer at aceshardware which showed the Kyro II beating every card out including the Geforce 3 with bilinear and everything but the Geforce 3 with trilinear which I would consider to be very good indeed especially for a $78. I know what your trying to say but even racers with will have a minimum of at least 1-1.5 overdraw average and that means Kyro II's raw fillrate of 350mpixels/s is doubled to 700mpixels/s (for 1 overdraw) and 875mpixel/s for 1.5 overdraw (of course thats with only 1 texture layer on each pixel). Also another thing your not taking into account is that Kyro doesn't only eliminate overdraw from games, it also keeps most of the framebuffer access onchip and also Z-buffer access totally on-chip so it saves a whole lot of bandwidth there. And as we know bandwidth is what limits cards today, the MX may have a 700mtexel/s (350mpixel/s) peak fillrate but it can't come close to that in real games because of the limited bandwidth which isn't anywhere near as much of a problem to Kyro, it actually hits its peak fillrate in the SS fillrate test while MX and GTS comes nowhere near there's.<br> <br> << The lacking in power I meant for games that wouldn't use its TBR, and in that case, the GTS is far better for about the same price, MX400 is slightly better for much less money >><br> <br> The cheapest GTS 64mb I can see on pricewatch is £128, the MX400 64mb is $68 and Kyro II 64mb is $78, thats $50 cheaper then the GTS and only $10 more then the MX. As for the MX being slightly better, I've never seen an MX beat a Kyro II at 1024x786 and above in games (appart from Giants with EWE and shadows enabled which is because of framebuffer locking with those features, turn those features off and the framebuffer locking stops and Kyro II again outpaces the MX).
