radeon 64MB DDR vs. Kyro II

[Guest]

Which has better 3d quality and which has better 2d quality? Also, which is faster (in overall games) for games in 32 bit mode?

 

[Guest]

that depends on the games and on the processor.

if a game is T&L that depends on the processor (the better the processor the better the kyro is)
if the game is not T&L then kyro 2 will achieve in most of the games better performance in 3d...(of course there will be some games than radeon will perform better)

My kyro 2 2d is great but I don't have a radeon to compare with ...


of course if you have win2k (from reports with radeon wn2k performance) kyro 2 would be the best option..

 

[Crashman]

The Radeon 64MB is better than the KyroII in 3d. It has a T&L engine, the KyroII does not. It also has a lot of other powerfull features that set it above the KyroII.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[Makaveli]

I agree, Radeon is better than Kyro II. Kyro has good FSAA performance but it still a budget Card!

 

[Guest]

it's a budget card but coupled with a decent cpu it will beat radeon with almoust all the benchmarks (more in 32 bit and with decent resolutions (1024x768x32) and up...) (in lower resolution kyro can actualy give playable FSAA numbers)

about radeon features...
T&L is easly performed by your system cpu (if you have a decent cpu)
pixel shaders (I think that this option is almoust dead in radeon (to slow to actually be a true feature)

one feature that radeon have better than kyro 2 is anisotropic kyro loses half the performance when enabling anisotropic (radeon lose less performance) but there are some that arguy that radeon use anisotropic without trilinear ... not sure about this...

tomshardware kyro review...
<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q2/010425/index.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/01q2/010425/index.html</A>

being a budget card does not mean that it can't beat non budget cards...


what this review can tell us is that radeon, geforce 2 gts or kyro 2 can always deliver playable performance in lower resolutions but if we try FSAA or higher resolutions kyro leads (not bad for a budget card)


if you can enable high resolution with 32 bit and FSAA you would get better 3d don't you think?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by powervr2 on 06/20/01 08:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

noko how is radeon win2k drivers ?
are they fine now?

I take these statment from that review
<i><font color=red>
"The benchmarks show that the Kyro II on the Hercules 3D Prophet 4500 is a thoroughly competitive product when compared to GeForce2 MX/GTS or the ATI Radeon, as long as you prefer 32-bit color</font color=red></i>

if you prefer better 3d quality (32bit) kyro is better...
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by powervr2 on 06/20/01 09:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[juin]

For quality graphic ATI win over every one in the same market section.For speed that dont change anything over 30 fps a MX will do the same job that ultra.

 

[noko]

W2K drivers are doing well on the Radeon compared to the original release drivers, night and day. All my benchmarks are on W2K. In 3dMark2001 I got my best score in W2K so the Directx 8 drivers for W2K work great. OpenGL is a little bit better in W2K then WinMe. Now if you have a non W2K game then you can expect some slow down. If you have a W2K DX aware game it usually plays about the same in WinMe and W2K.

Yes the Radeon uses bilinear filtering when it does anistropic filtering, up to 16 bilinear filtered pixels from the texture giving it a total of 64 sampled pixels from each texture = 64 tap for each screen drawn pixel. This gives the highest anisotropic ratio of any board out now, the next best anisotropic ratio board is GF3 at 8:1 max. Which does 8 trilinear filtered pixels from two mipmaps equating to 64 tap also. While the Kyro2 and the GF2 share a 2:1 ratio of anistropic filtering. The GF2 and I believe Kyro2 can do bilinear or trilinear filtering for Anistropic filtering giving them both a 8tap or 16tap anistropic filter. Don't mix up tap with anistropic ratio. I believe the GF3 has the edge on Anistropic filtering due to it using tri-linear filtering method but still the Radeon will beat out the GF3 in rendering textures at a steeper angle and distance from point of view. As for compairing the Radeon to GF2 series or Kyro2 anistropic filtering there is no contest.

Radeon 2d is 2nd only to the Matrox G-400 or above, I've read that the 2d of the Kyro2 is equivalent to the MX's. Which I believe is better then the original GF2s or GF1s when they came out. 2d on the Radeon is also been noted by a number of individuals and reviews to be better then the GF3's.

DVD and video the Radeon is the best plain and simple.

FSAA is limited on the Radeon, useful at 800x600x32 and below due to the servere performance hit - my opinion. Still usable but not the best. The Kyro2 laughs at the Radeon there.

Both cards are unique, if you want a great all around performer it would be hard to pass up the Radeon. If you need FSAA, a cheaper card and also you have a strong cpu a Kyro2 is also a very good option. In some games like Serious Sam (w/o anistropic filtering) the Kyro2 kicks some major butt. With anistropic filtering the Kyro2 takes a nose dive. Interestingly when the GF3 and Radeon are using there max anistropic filtering method they have virtually the same FPS at 1024x768x32 in Serious Sam. The GF3 anistropic filtering takes a significant hit on performance while on the Radeon it doesn't. Still the GF3 FSAA is ultimately superior to everything except 3dfx Voodoo 5.

I recommend the 5ns memory Radeon 64 Retail which you can pick up for around $150 now days. They overclock over 225/225 mhz core/mem and performance is better then the reviews shown in the past, much better. I will wait for the Radeon2 and then decide if I want to upgrade, my Radeon64 has been performing better then I ever expected since September of last year. Every game I play I can max out and enjoy smooth game play.

Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b>