Kyro2 + celeron = crap?
Tags:
-
Graphics Cards
- Celeron
-
Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Sihs
December 30, 2001 1:30:39 PM
My friend has just bought a 3d prophet 4500 graphics card. I tried it on my Athlon 1.33 and it works really good, scoring 2500 on 3dmark 2k1 (which is higher than my other friend with a P4 1.5GHz who gets 2000), 90+ fps on Quake 3 demo four @ 1024 max detail. So he took it back to his pc, a celeron 500MHz (via apollo 133a I think) and it refuses to score more than 35fps. Is it a driver thing or does the Kyro depend <b>that</b> bad on the processor? Does anybody get a better score using a similar cpu (celeron 400-600MHz)?
Thanks
Signature (up to 100 characters). You may use Markup in your signature
Thanks
Signature (up to 100 characters). You may use Markup in your signature
More about : kyro2 celeron crap
Matisaro
December 30, 2001 1:36:15 PM
AMD_Man
December 30, 2001 1:39:16 PM
LoveGuRu
December 30, 2001 5:27:03 PM
Intel_inside
December 30, 2001 6:15:23 PM
flamethrower205
December 30, 2001 6:56:50 PM
AMD_Man
December 30, 2001 7:03:12 PM
flamethrower205
December 30, 2001 8:43:22 PM
From a hardware standpoint, KyroII=crap. What most cards do in HARDWARE, it does in SOFTWARE, so you can put it in the same catagory at software modems and AC97 codec sound. Since it's a "soft" 3D card, your performance is 100% related to the capabilities of your processor. He might be better off with a TNT2 AGP. For sure he'd be better off with an MX400.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
AMD_Man
December 30, 2001 8:52:12 PM
Yes, it's funny how trolls call others trolls when they know that they are the trolls! It's a widely accepted fact that Intel_inside is a troll since post#1! Matisaro on the other hand, has always been a respected member of the Tom's Hardware Community.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
AMD_Man
December 30, 2001 8:53:51 PM
flamethrower205
December 30, 2001 9:03:23 PM
AMD_Man
December 30, 2001 9:29:34 PM
Sihs
December 31, 2001 3:37:37 AM
Matisaro
December 31, 2001 8:51:01 AM
Anonymous
a
b
U
Graphics card
December 31, 2001 12:00:24 PM
flamethrower205
December 31, 2001 4:41:36 PM
athalus
December 31, 2001 5:50:52 PM
here are a couple of fyi's on the kyro 2. i've built 2 machines using the card and it works fine in both. one is a 1ghz p3, 256mb pc 133 ram and the other a 933 p3 with 128mb of pc133 (my own). i put in another 256mb of ram in my p3, for a total of 384mb and it shut down my direct x hardware. i called hercules and with a couple of downloads it fixed the problem. i just built a new machine, an amd athlon xp 1700 w/256mb of pc2100, and it works fine. i'm planning on putting it back into the p3 as soon as i decide what to put into the amd.
the card works fine for the games i normally play, rpg's and rts' (gallatic battlegrounds is my current one.)
also note that the card has gone down $50 to $100 at my local comp usa, something to think about.
good luck
the card works fine for the games i normally play, rpg's and rts' (gallatic battlegrounds is my current one.)
also note that the card has gone down $50 to $100 at my local comp usa, something to think about.
good luck
Intel_inside
December 31, 2001 7:28:14 PM
Anonymous
a
b
U
Graphics card
January 1, 2002 2:08:00 AM
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
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
Matisaro
January 1, 2002 7:48:55 AM
ALpha, untill fill rate becomes your bottleneck, I guarentee a kryo 2 wont do rtcw at 1600x1200x32@70 fps regardless of what cpu you have.
The reason the fps is cpu limited is the cpu is doing all the t&l, this is not a positive thing, its a negative thing.
The kryo is equally priced to a gf2mx400, which will out perform the card most of the time. However for 30 bucks more you can get a gf2 ti which will completely devistate the kryo. There was a brief window when the kryo 2 was a good buy, that window has long since been slammed shut.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
The reason the fps is cpu limited is the cpu is doing all the t&l, this is not a positive thing, its a negative thing.
The kryo is equally priced to a gf2mx400, which will out perform the card most of the time. However for 30 bucks more you can get a gf2 ti which will completely devistate the kryo. There was a brief window when the kryo 2 was a good buy, that window has long since been slammed shut.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Anonymous
a
b
U
Graphics card
January 2, 2002 10:33:09 AM
Sihs
January 2, 2002 9:52:43 PM
Ok, my friend has just tested his Kyro2 in the following rig:
P3 750MHz 100 buzz(kidding)
via chipset based MoBo with agp 1x
It gave him a total score of 45fps using quake. That's a lot less than he was expecting for that cpu. Could agp 1x to 2x differ that much?
Signature (up to 100 characters). You may use Markup in your signature
P3 750MHz 100 buzz(kidding)
via chipset based MoBo with agp 1x
It gave him a total score of 45fps using quake. That's a lot less than he was expecting for that cpu. Could agp 1x to 2x differ that much?
Signature (up to 100 characters). You may use Markup in your signature
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!