Hercules 3D Prophet™ 4500 64MB KryoII -- WOW!

I just picked up a Hercules 3D Prophet� 4500 64MB KryoII video card CHEAP ($40), and I thought it might be a nice inexpensive upgrade for my aging 32MB GeForce256 card (one of the original GeForce cards). The installation went smoothly (removed NVidia drivers first, then installed new card and installed latest KyroII drivers). After I got everything up and running again, the first thing I fired up was Rally Trophy, and I was ABSOLUTELY AMAZED at the difference. 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 buggered, 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 gaming -- 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

About a year ago I built a machine (AMD 1.2 Ghz, 256MB Ram) for a friend and recommended that card since it was the best bang for the buck ($140 at the time). Most reviews had it performing very close to cards in the $200-250 range. I thought he would do well with the card for a year or so until the GF4's came out since GF3's were very pricy and certainly not offering 2x's the performance for more than 2x's the price. 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 "jbodin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I just picked up a Hercules 3D ProphetT 4500 64MB KryoII video card > CHEAP ($40), and I thought it might be a nice inexpensive upgrade for > my aging 32MB GeForce256 card (one of the original GeForce cards). The > installation went smoothly (removed NVidia drivers first, then > installed new card and installed latest KyroII drivers). After I got > everything up and running again, the first thing I fired up was Rally > Trophy, and I was ABSOLUTELY AMAZED at the difference. > > 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 buggered, > 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 gaming > -- 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

"jbodin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (75 lines)

> I just picked up a Hercules 3D ProphetT 4500 64MB KryoII video card > CHEAP ($40), and I thought it might be a nice inexpensive upgrade for > my aging 32MB GeForce256 card (one of the original GeForce cards). The > installation went smoothly (removed NVidia drivers first, then > installed new card and installed latest KyroII drivers). After I got > everything up and running again, the first thing I fired up was Rally > Trophy, and I was ABSOLUTELY AMAZED at the difference. > > 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 buggered, > 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 gaming > -- 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

Hey John, what are the other relevan system specs of the computer in which you installed the KyroII card? I am curious as I have been trying to gather info into whether or not it would play well with a slower processor... K6-III 450MHz. range. How much ram installed? Motherboard, chipset, and O.S.? I'm not expecting miracles either... just wonder if it's worth it for an older system or should I stick with the old Creative Banshee that's still chugging away. TIA, Robin

LOL! Ironically, I picked up the card off ebay, and the guy I bought it from had just upgraded to a GF4 Ti, I believe -- wonder if I bought it off your buddy? :-D -- JB "Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<HShs8.56812$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (19 lines)

> About a year ago I built a machine (AMD 1.2 Ghz, 256MB Ram) for a friend and > recommended that card since it was the best bang for the buck ($140 at the > time). Most reviews had it performing very close to cards in the $200-250 > range. I thought he would do well with the card for a year or so until the > GF4's came out since GF3's were very pricy and certainly not offering 2x's > the performance for more than 2x's the price. > > 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

Now that would have been a crazy coincidence! He's not your eBay seller, he's putting his Kryo in his old machine. -- Joe Marques "jbodin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > LOL! Ironically, I picked up the card off ebay, and the guy I bought > it from had just upgraded to a GF4 Ti, I believe -- wonder if I bought > it off your buddy? > > :-D > > -- JB > > "Joe Marques" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<HShs8.56812$[email hidden]>... > > About a year ago I built a machine (AMD 1.2 Ghz, 256MB Ram) for a friend and > > recommended that card since it was the best bang for the buck ($140 at the > > time). Most reviews had it performing very close to cards in the $200-250 > > range. I thought he would do well with the card for a year or so until the > > GF4's came out since GF3's were very pricy and certainly not offering 2x's > > the performance for more than 2x's the price. > > > > 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 >

"Robin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<JTjs8.5962$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> "jbodin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > I just picked up a Hercules 3D ProphetT 4500 64MB KryoII video card > > CHEAP ($40), and I thought it might be a nice inexpensive upgrade for > > my aging 32MB GeForce256 card (one of the original GeForce cards). The > > installation went smoothly (removed NVidia drivers first, then > > installed new card and installed latest KyroII drivers). After I got > > everything up and running again, the first thing I fired up was Rally > > Trophy, and I was ABSOLUTELY AMAZED at the difference.

<SNIP>

Quoted text (23 lines)

> > 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 > Hey John, what are the other relevan system specs of the computer in which > you installed the KyroII card? I am curious as I have been trying to gather > info into whether or not it would play well with a slower processor... > K6-III 450MHz. range. How much ram installed? Motherboard, chipset, and > O.S.? I'm not expecting miracles either... just wonder if it's worth it for > an older system or should I stick with the old Creative Banshee that's still > chugging away. > TIA, > Robin

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

Quoted text (20 lines)

> 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

"Robin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<5dps8.6456$[email hidden]>... ><SNIP>

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > 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

Hmmmm . . . for an end-of-the-line K6-III system, I would guess that you might be better off with a cheap 32MB GeForce2 GTS or GeForce2 MX card. The GeForce is more compatible with weak-kneed processors than the KyroII, I believe. I'd highly recommend the GTS version over the GeForce2 MX, and you can find the GTS on Pricewatch for around the same price as a KryoII card (around $47 for a 32MB GF2 GTS). 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

Quoted text (25 lines)

> Hmmmm . . . for an end-of-the-line K6-III system, I would guess that > you might be better off with a cheap 32MB GeForce2 GTS or GeForce2 MX > card. The GeForce is more compatible with weak-kneed processors than > the KyroII, I believe. I'd highly recommend the GTS version over the > GeForce2 MX, and you can find the GTS on Pricewatch for around the > same price as a KryoII card (around $47 for a 32MB GF2 GTS). > > 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

"Robin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wqus8.7357$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (30 lines)

> > > Hmmmm . . . for an end-of-the-line K6-III system, I would guess that > > you might be better off with a cheap 32MB GeForce2 GTS or GeForce2 MX > > card. The GeForce is more compatible with weak-kneed processors than > > the KyroII, I believe. I'd highly recommend the GTS version over the > > GeForce2 MX, and you can find the GTS on Pricewatch for around the > > same price as a KryoII card (around $47 for a 32MB GF2 GTS). > > > > 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 theupgrade > thing that wants to get rid of a GTS. I am not sure what the MX400 cardsare > 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