qwerty01
I do not know if anyone has seen this on AnandTech, but there is a new video card on the market called the Kyro II. It is a 64MB video card that does not use DDR ram, nor does it use hardware T&L. What it does do is beat out many of Nvidia's & ATI's cards.
IT DOES THIS WHILE THE PRICE IS ONLY $150.
I had to make sure everyone saw that before I went on. Here is the article, it is kind of long, but all of AnandTech's articles are long:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1435
More importantly, here is the beginning of the benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1435&p=9
Quake III (fps) 1024x768x32
GF2 Ultra----------128.6
GF2 Pro 64MB-------111.6
KYRO II------------100.3
GF2 GTS------------95.6
Radeon DDR 64MB----80.6
Voodoo 5 5500------73.3
Radeon SDR---------60.6
GF2 MX-------------55.6
Quake III 1600x1200x32
GF2 Ultra----------56.1
GF2 Pro 64MB-------46
KYRO II------------41.6
GF2 GTS 64MB-------39.1
Radeon DDR 64MB----36.2
Voodoo5 5500-------26.4
Radeon SDR---------25.9
GF2 MX-------------20.1
Theoretical fillrate is how many megapixels per second a card should push out if you look at the size of the bandwidth, processor speed, and pipeline.
The Geforce 2 Ultra has a theoretical fillrate of 1000 megapixels per second. The actual single texture fillrate was 374.95, or 37.5% efficiency. The Kyro II has a theoretical fillrate of 350 megapixels per second. The actual single texture fillrate is 352.89, or over 100% efficiency.
OK, I know what you are saying, the Geforce 2 ultra kicks everythings *** as far as FSAA is concerned. Well, at 4X FSAA turned on, these were the results:
Serious Sam FSAA test 1024x768x32 4X FSAA (fps)
Kyro II--------------28.4
GF2 Ultra------------22.8
GF 2 Pro 64MB--------21.6
GF 2 GTS 64MB--------16
GF 2 MX--------------8.6
Voodoo 5 5500--------4.4
The Geforce 2 Ultra runs $450 & the Kyro II is only $150. What do you guys think??
IT DOES THIS WHILE THE PRICE IS ONLY $150.
I had to make sure everyone saw that before I went on. Here is the article, it is kind of long, but all of AnandTech's articles are long:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1435
More importantly, here is the beginning of the benchmarks:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1435&p=9
Quake III (fps) 1024x768x32
GF2 Ultra----------128.6
GF2 Pro 64MB-------111.6
KYRO II------------100.3
GF2 GTS------------95.6
Radeon DDR 64MB----80.6
Voodoo 5 5500------73.3
Radeon SDR---------60.6
GF2 MX-------------55.6
Quake III 1600x1200x32
GF2 Ultra----------56.1
GF2 Pro 64MB-------46
KYRO II------------41.6
GF2 GTS 64MB-------39.1
Radeon DDR 64MB----36.2
Voodoo5 5500-------26.4
Radeon SDR---------25.9
GF2 MX-------------20.1
Theoretical fillrate is how many megapixels per second a card should push out if you look at the size of the bandwidth, processor speed, and pipeline.
The Geforce 2 Ultra has a theoretical fillrate of 1000 megapixels per second. The actual single texture fillrate was 374.95, or 37.5% efficiency. The Kyro II has a theoretical fillrate of 350 megapixels per second. The actual single texture fillrate is 352.89, or over 100% efficiency.
OK, I know what you are saying, the Geforce 2 ultra kicks everythings *** as far as FSAA is concerned. Well, at 4X FSAA turned on, these were the results:
Serious Sam FSAA test 1024x768x32 4X FSAA (fps)
Kyro II--------------28.4
GF2 Ultra------------22.8
GF 2 Pro 64MB--------21.6
GF 2 GTS 64MB--------16
GF 2 MX--------------8.6
Voodoo 5 5500--------4.4
The Geforce 2 Ultra runs $450 & the Kyro II is only $150. What do you guys think??
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Brian Frank
One problem: the GF 2 Ultra is out; the Kyro isnt supposed to be out until April. However, cosidering the GF3 is IMO a really expensive GF2 Ultra anyway, the Kyro based cards could do very well. Hopefully the drivers for it wont suck like ATI's Radeon drivers.
Im not really up on all the tech specs of the Kyro, but it does seem quite interesting technology with that tile-based rendering.
But if the drivers arent good, the product will suffer, like ATI's Radeon lineup.
Im not really up on all the tech specs of the Kyro, but it does seem quite interesting technology with that tile-based rendering.
But if the drivers arent good, the product will suffer, like ATI's Radeon lineup.
PsychoSword
It doesn't look like the Kyro II's drivers will suck, in fact quite the opposite. I've seen the Windows 2000 benchmarking scores for it last week and it is already smokin in our favorite O/S.
EddiE314
if all of this is true, then the card looks promising, Brian's statement that the gf 2 ultra is out makes me think of 3dfx's probelms with not getting the cards out in time to compete with the latest/greatest competitors like ATI and nVidia, and we saw what happened to 3dfx. Personally i hope the card does well, i'd like to see some variety in the market, not too much, but enough to make other companies race to make the best vid card. Of course, i'll always be a "die-hard" nVidia fan.
qwerty01
OP
I am also an Nvidia fan, it is just really good to see (with more research) that I can recommend a video card for gaming without seeing the persons face when I say how much it is.
Brian Frank
We can all benefit from a price war between video card companies. Just look at the one going on between Intel and AMD, and look how cheap speed is. Look at how cheap the Durons are: ~$100 gets you an 800MHz easily, and then you can, theoretically, overclock it to 1GHz no sweat.
Mmmm...think of cheap cards with the power of the GF2 Ultra or better.
Mmmm...think of cheap cards with the power of the GF2 Ultra or better.
Bursar
The big problem with the Kyro II is that it is not DX8 optimised, and doesn't have a TnL engine.
Apparently they have a TnL engine ready, but it won;t be part of the Kyro II.
It's also likely that as games start chucking more polygons around, the Kyro II could get bogged sorting out what should and should not be seen.
Apparently they have a TnL engine ready, but it won;t be part of the Kyro II.
It's also likely that as games start chucking more polygons around, the Kyro II could get bogged sorting out what should and should not be seen.
qwerty01
OP
Bursar, I think that is why they tested the card on Quake III & Serious Sam. They throw out some SERIOUS polys & even without hardware T&L a $150 card was heavy competition with cards that DO have hardware T&L & cost much more.
I agree that the card is not DX8 optimized, but it is going up against cards that are not DX8 optimized either. This is the first card they put out to go up against Nvidia & it is supposed to be in direct competition with the Geforce 2 cards, not the Geforce 3 that is DX8 optimized. I'm sure they will have another card in the works that will directly compete with the Geforce 3 & (I hope, I hope, I hope) it will force Nvidia to bring down the price of the Geforce 3 so the average Joe can buy one.
I agree that the card is not DX8 optimized, but it is going up against cards that are not DX8 optimized either. This is the first card they put out to go up against Nvidia & it is supposed to be in direct competition with the Geforce 2 cards, not the Geforce 3 that is DX8 optimized. I'm sure they will have another card in the works that will directly compete with the Geforce 3 & (I hope, I hope, I hope) it will force Nvidia to bring down the price of the Geforce 3 so the average Joe can buy one.
EddiE314
from what i read about it, it doesn't need a t&l engine(don't know how reputable the site was though)to compete, its supposed to be that good.
euankirkhope
apparently the kyro took a down right kicking with Mercedes Benz truck racing, and some other game.
But anyway, looks like excellent future technology. I look forward to hearing about the Kyro 3.
But anyway, looks like excellent future technology. I look forward to hearing about the Kyro 3.
