• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Kyro II or Ge-force 2 mx

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Brototype

New Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2001
Location
England
Dear Helpful techy people

I am currently running a PIII 600MHz on a matrox millennium......yes I know really out dated! I am hoping to soon upgrade to an AMD Palomino / Thunderbird 1.4GHz, or above. Before I do this, I am looking to upgrade my graphics card, but I don't know which one to go for.
I am constantly hearing good things about the Ge-force 2 MX, but one of my more knowledgeable friends at work says that on a 1.4GHz processor, it will would be best to go for a Kyro II. I mainly use my PC for games……..and university work (BIG Max Payne fan!!), so decent, fast graphics rendering is a must.

PLEASE HELP!!!

Brototype
 
Well I would have to say that they are bith pretty equal, that is of course if you get the Top of the line MX, which would prolly be the Hercules MX400. But If I personally had to choose, I would go with the Kyro!!
 
jeff_harrison_344 said:
Well I would have to say that they are bith pretty equal, that is of course if you get the Top of the line MX, which would prolly be the Hercules MX400. But If I personally had to choose, I would go with the Kyro!!

For the record, ditto.
 
I just upgraded to a Hercules Kyro 2 that I will use until I get a Geforce 3. For me I was impressed with it:

Good
1. Tile Rendering Bump Mapping
2. Cool Blue circuit board
3. Decent price
4. Good frame rates
5. Lots of OpenGL and Direct 3D options with the Kyro Tools XP program

Bad
1. Refresh rate problem in OpenGL but D3D refresh can be forced
2. Visual options take a while to figure out
3. No Linux drivers


Logo.jpg
 
What about a welcome?
Welcome to the forums, though I don't have any advice for ya, sorrry
 
Yeah, Kyro2 is a mighty performer, It just needs U to do some tweaking and setting fiddlin for the games (some work fine straight out tought). But isnt that what we OC's and other "gurus" love? Itl give U better performance than GF2MX in most cases, only the 3Dmark2k1 sucks cause of certain M$'s DX8 bug. And cos some Nvidia luvin @ Madonion.

I got some 85fps on Q3A demo1 at 1024x768x32 and details maxed out. And motocross maddnes ran at 800x600 with 4xFSAA, very nicely.
 
Does the Kryo II have major problems with newer games.. I intend to be playing a game called Dark Age of Camelot in october and wonder if I'd be better off just getting a Geforce2 card.. :(
 
Sounds like your friend has given you some good advice. The main weakness I see w/ your current setup is the Kyro2's lack of a hardware based T&L unit (Transform and Lighting). The Kyro2 relies on the power of your processor to handle those duties.

A fast processor w/ a Kyro 2 will destroy a fast processor w/ a MX400. Put the Kyro 2 in your 600machine vs. a MX400 and you might see different results.
 
jeff_harrison_344 said:
Well I would have to say that they are bith pretty equal, that is of course if you get the Top of the line MX, which would prolly be the Hercules MX400. But If I personally had to choose, I would go with the Kyro!!

Just put a system together today with a hercule2 3dprophetII MX400 and an AMD 1.4g 3Dmark 2k @ 5200-5300, I think the Kyro will do better than this.
 
If I were you I'd wait till the prices on the Geforce2gts or ultra drop a little more then buy one of those. If your not the one for waiting go with the kyro2.
 
Back