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

´Performance difference between Kyro II and Geforce II Ultra?

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

Celemine1Gig

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Location
Germany->Bavaria-> Augsburg
Performance difference between Kyro II and Geforce II Ultra?

Hi guys and gals,

I'm running a Kyro II 64MB card right now and I've got the chance to upgrade it to a Geforce II Ultra soon, for about 50$ (the est thing is that I can sell my Kyro II also for 50$, thus I won't pay a penny for the Geforce:D ).
Now I'd like to know what the peformance difference will be like on my Celeron 1000 Tualatin @1500 MHz machine.

Thx in advance

Ingo
;)
 
Last edited:
You should notice quite a difference... plus you drivers will be so much better when it comes to game support. I know, I just got rid of my kyro. I tried a friends GF2 GTS in my box and I could tell a speed difference between the kyro and the GTS.
 
Thanks for your reply! In the menatime, I already took a look at the VGA-Chart at www.rivastation.com and saw that there's a huge performance difference between the two cards, with the Geforce II Ultra clearly in the lead.

I think I'll be happy, if the deal is done.:)
 
Ive seen the card beat a Gf2 ultra in FPS, but it gives poor 3dmarks because of its tile based rendering and no hardware T&L support...

Just thought I'd point out what Ive seen...
 
The difference that you get may not be that great. The reason for this is that the Kyro II scales extremely well with CPU speed so depending on the game you may or may not get an increase. I would hold off in getting the GF2 Ultra and save it for at least a Geforce3/Radeon 8500. For now you should get some better cooling, perform a voltage mod, and overclock your Kyro II.
 
yes, because 3dmark was pretty much designed for Nvidia cards, the KyroII scores badly....however in REAL GAMES....i dont think you will see too much of a difference, not one worth 50$ anyway...
 
I noticed no real-world performance differance in 90% of games on a Kyro 2 vs. a GF2. In fact, I prefered the Kyro 2 because I liked it's 32 bit display better and it ran UT quicker.

I'd save your 50 bux for a better card.. something with a vertex shader.
 
Opps, Er ist aus Deutchland (please excuse the poor german...)

I didn't realize that. He should still be able to find some decent deals out there for more sophisticated graphics cards at pretty remarkable prices though...I'm with those that say wait and save some pennies up! errr...i mean "marks" up
 
Well, I agree with all of you. Every of these posts is right in some way, but I'll mainly play Max Payne, GTA3, RTCW and so on and these games are really faster on the GF2 Ultra!

But the most important fact, that makes me perform this upgrade, is that it won't cost me a penny because I'll buy the GF2 Ultra for 50 bucks, and then I'll sell my Kyro II on eBay for the same 50 bucks! So all in all I'll have a faster card without paying one dollar!

BTW, @garasaki:
"Opps, Er ist aus Deutchland (please excuse the poor german...)"

No need to apologize! The sentence was written in completely correct German. Sounds just like it would be your mother tongue:D
 
Gee thanks! Ich spreche deutsch, aber nict sehr gut...

Its funny how everyone (or at least I did) totally missed to zero cost to you part. But I still think you might be better off to get a more advanced card, even though you'll have to drop 50 to 100 bucks on it...I think it'll be worth it in the long run...
 
Yes, I agree, that if you consider long term usage, than another/better card would be the way to go, but my current box will soon be only my secondary system and I'll build a new primary PC with, I think a GF4 TI 4200 and a Tualatin Celeron 1000@1666MHz+?? (or maybe a P4 1.6GHz@? NW, I dunno).

So in my opinion, the Geforce 2 Ultra will be more than enough for the secondary box with the Celeron Tualatin at 1,5GHz!

Thanks though for all your replies!

And again @garasaki:
I'm impressed, your German is really good(if one considers that it's not very likely that you use it everyday).
This sentence again was written in correct German.
"Ich spreche deutsch, aber nict sehr gut..."
No fault, besides the tiny mistake, that "nicht" is written with "ch", but I think that was only a typo!
;)
BTW, is my English more or less correct??? I ask, because I chose English as one of my primary subjects at school, and it's very important for my graduation. So I always try to improve my English, to get better marks(and of course to be able to comment everything here in the forums).:D
 
Well, I just went back thru your posts and looked for any signs of bad english...couldn't find anything! Perfect grammar and all! I mean, if I looked REAL close, I could tell that you're "not from around here" just because of a few of the phrases you use, but I could only tell by looking real close. And I'm sure technical conversation has to be challenging for someone who hasn't spoken english their whole lives!

I took german in high school, 4 years ago...and haven't really spoken any since...I can only recall a few short phrases...and I never really knew all that much to begin with!
 
Thanks! That really strengthens my self confidence:D !

I have to admit that it's much harder to learn German(of course only if you're not a native speaker;) ) than to learn English or for example French, because the German grammar is so difficult. So if I wasn't a native speaker, had learned German at school and hadn't spoken a German word for 4 years, I doubt that I would be able to say one correct sentence. ;)
 
Last edited:
Back