For the record: I'm changeing my name to Kyro fanatic
Insanity: I ran a Kyro II(64mb) on a K6-2 350 with 32mb ram (Ali chipset) for a month or so, so i know about these things. It ran just fine.
The behavior of the Kyro II is very strange though. It is related to the processor speed. IMHO the processor speed determines the maximum fps on the card.
Here is the raw data: Quake III- turn everything down as far as you can. Now set the resolution to 320x240. Now move it up slowly, setting by setting.
This test yields a very interesting reesult: the card runs at 165fps at 320x240, at 164fps at 640x480, and at 158fps at 1024x768. <font color=blue>The total difference is 7fps!</font color=blue>. (Tests run on an AXP 1.46Ghz)
I noticed this as well when i was running the Kyro II on the K6-2 350: the fps would not go above 24 no matter what i tried and no matter what game i was running- Q1/Q2/Q3. Nor would it go down when i turned up the resolution or detail.
I've also had the opportunity to run a Kyro II on a PIII 600 and a Tbird 800. The fps does indeed scale with the processor speed.
The point is even though your Kyro/Kyro II will only run at oh say 60(?) fps, remember that you can push it up to 1024x768 or whatever resolution you like, and still run it at 60fps.
--------------------------
In anwser to your question, a Celeron 500 is really too little to run a Kyro II on. A processor 800-1000mhz is where the Kyro II works best. Everything above that yields excellent results but does not yeild the best price/performance ratio.
-------------------------------
<font color=blue>I for one run Quake 3 on a P133(No MMX)</font color=blue>I have no affiliatioin w/ Intel