rec.autos.simulators

The frame rates didn't really look or seem that much smoother, but the
difference in the responsiveness of the controls was ASTOUNDING. I
thought I had good frame rates and good control of the cars before,
but now the vehicle REALLY responds well -- not just how I'd like for
it to, but how I would EXPECT it to . . . even moreso than what I'd
previously been experiencing with Rally Trophy.

The other cool benefit to the new KryoII card is the fact that I get
NO SLOWDOWNS whatsoever during replays -- those big dust clouds that
used to cause things to grind from the outside camera views don't even
bog down the new KyroII card one bit. That's not unexpected, thanks to
the KryoII's tile-based rendering methodology.

Overall, the game looks sharper now, too, and it drives better than
ever. I trimmed several seconds off my own personal best on the Russia
1 stage with ease, thanks mainly to the improved handling and
responsiveness.

This illustrated for me just how important it is to not only have
graphics that APPEAR to be smooth, but to have graphics that actually
ARE smooth. My faithful, venerable GeForce256 handled Rally Trophy
without a complaint, and RT always ran smoothly, with no pauses or
hesitations, but now I see that although it did an admirable job, the
GeForce256 card was really straining to keep up (and holding me back
in the process).

I've also seen improvements in GPL, NASCAR Heat, and everything else
I've tried it with -- and with DX 8.1 and the latest Kyro drivers,
I've seen NO artifacts or graphical errors in anything I've tried yet.
 I haven't tested F1 2001 yet, because my installation is ***ed,
but I suspect things will work very nicely there, based on what I'm
seeing elsewhere.  With some of the NASCAR Heat mods (like SoH 1937,
for example), I'm seeing some REAL improvements in performance.  This
is a robust little card!

Keep in mind that all of my testing has been in 32-bit color mode; I
previously ran everything in 16-bit color with my GeForce256, so I'm
enjoying a LOT better graphics quality now.  With the desktop
resolution at 32-bit color as well, my 2D apps are also benefitting as
well.

FWIW, I'm aware that the KyroII card is NOT the holy grail of ***
-- based on everything I read and all the research I did before buying
it, it's basically equal to or slightly better a good GeForce2 GTS
card. Considering that I had an aging GeForce256 card, I figured that
I had nothing to lose with a $40 upgrade that would get me up into the
GeForce2 GTS performance range, and I was absolutely right.  These
cards are going for about $48 on Pricewatch, which is right in the
same price range as the GeForce2GTS.  As a long-time NVidia fan,
though, I am certainly not sorry that I didn't go with a GF2GTS, and I
suspect that I may actually be seeing BETTER performance overall with
the KyroII anyway.

I doubt that GeForce2 or GeForce3 owners would benefit from a KryoII
card, but for me, it was a HUGE improvement. Add in the fact that the
KyroII card handles 32-bit color and FSAA without blinking, and I
think I'll be using the KryoII card for quite some time. Quite a
bargain for $40, IMO!  If you're still running any older cards
(ranging from a TNT2 Ultra to a GeForce256 or a GeForce2MX) and you're
looking for a cheap upgrade in the sub-$100 range, I'd DEFINITELY
recommend checking out one of the KryoII card.

[/END MINI-REVIEW]

;-)

-- JB

He has been extremely happy with the card.  Hasn't had any compatibility
issues with dozens of games.  Performance and driver support has been great.
He just upgraded to a GF4 Ti 4400 since the performance improvement of a GF4
card is now worth it to him.  The Kryo has plenty of legs left, he just
wanted to crank up the eye candy and play everything at 2x or 4x FSAA (which
he does pretty easily with the GF4).

Good choice, that card should serve you well.  It's the hidden gem of video
cards.

--
Joe Marques

:-D

-- JB

--
Joe Marques

I've currently got the KyroII car in a Duron 700 system with 384MB of
RAM.  I hear that the KryoII is nicely scalable, so while it might not
be ideal for your current 450MHz system, it would still be a good
upgrade option that would still be fairly compatible with any future
system upgrades (i.e., upgrade the video now, enjoy some incremental
gains over the Banshee, then when you upgrade later, the video card
will benefit from the CPU upgrade without becoming an instant
choke-point for the new system).

FWIW, I had a Banshee in a K6-2 450 system, and a simple upgrade to a
TNT2 Ultra made for a definitely noticeable improvement.  I would
guess that you would benefit nicely from anything in the
GeForce256/GeForce2MX/KyroII range.  You'd still be CPU limited, but
you would experience some considerable benefits over the old Banshee
card.  Alternately, if you're REALLY on a budget, you might even
consider a TNT2 M64 card for your system (I'm currently running one of
those in my old K6-2 system because it was still an improvement over
the old Banshee card).

-- JB

Actually I wasn't quite clear... that system I am looking to upgrade the
graphics in is my oldest and used primarily by my wife and daughter. I have
it networked with two other stouter systems (it's the slowest by far) but I
was wanting to upgrade to the best graphics card for the processor without
overspending so that when I have friends over and we race over my lan the
guy on the slowest system is getting the most out of it he can. So, long
story short... the KyroII card (if I go that route) would not need to scale
to a faster processor because that system is at the end of it's line and
whatever card is in there will stay there. That's why I was wondering if I
should just leave the Banshee (is it a good match for the K6-III?) or is it
worth some extra cash to get "the most out of" the system.
Regards,
Robin

Keep in mind that the GeForce2 MX cards were somewhat-crippled GF
cards, and that they typically benchmarked at near or the same level
as the TNT2 Ultra cards.  My GeForce256 was about as potent as the
original GeForce2 MX cards, and the newer GeForce2 MX200 cards perform
WORSE than my GF255.  Don't pay more for a GeForce2 MX if you can get
a GTS for the same price or less, and remember that the GeForce2 MX200
is especially weak, even in the 64MB variety.  Go for the GeForce2
MX400 ($39 on Pricewatch) if you must have an MX.  Finally, I'd stick
with the 32MB varieties, regardless -- I really don't think the extra
memory buys you that much with ANY of the GF2 cards (I could be wrong
about this, but I don't think you'd get twice the performance for
twice the price).  The exception to this might be the GF2 MX400 -- the
64MB version is only $3 more than the 32MB version on Pricewatch, so
it might be worth the difference.

Hope this helps!

-- JB

Thanks!!! That was exactly the type of info I was looking for... I hadn't
seen any testing of the KyroII with older processors as all hardware sites
were using current technology to test when the KyroII first shipped and that
was at least 800MHz. cpus (I think). I'll see if I can track down a GTS
locally first... you know, ask around and see if anyone is doing the upgrade
thing that wants to get rid of a GTS. I am not sure what the MX400 cards are
selling for up here in Canada but I'm going to check some Cdn. sites right
away. Thanks again.
Regards,
Robin

I think a GTS would be your best bet as well; the Kyro II is definitely a
CPU-hungry card, more so than most cards.  With enough CPU and good drivers,
though, it's a darn good card.

Milhouse