Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Radeon 32 SDR vs Kyro 64 MB vs G400 16 MB

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Radeon 32 SDR vs Kyro 64 MB vs G400 16 MB

    My quest for a replacement for my G400 first led me to a Evil Kyro 64 MB, and now to a Radeon 32 SDR. I though I would post benchmarks and impressions of the two as some of you might be in the same position.

    Test system:
    Duron 650@866(133)
    512 MB CAS 3 ram @133
    Win98SE

    UT 4.36 Thunder demo:

    D3D 1024x768x16:
    Kyro min 43,34 max 114,04 avg 72,52
    Radeon min 36,52 max 145,49 avg 64,28
    G400 min 20,89 max 84,96 avg 41,17

    D3D 1024x768x32:
    Kyro min 25,58 max 93,20 avg 52,69
    Radeon min 21,60 max 104,30 avg 46,78
    G400 didn't bother, the 16 MB is too big a limitation.

    I then installed the new OpenGL renderer and the compressed textures from CD2, only the Radeon supports S3TC, although I believe that the Kyro will eventually.

    OGL 1024x768x32:
    Radeon min 27,34 max 78,49 avg 55,27

    This looks awesome and is faster than the 32 bit D3D score

    3DMark2001 - 1024x768x32:

    Radeon - 2279 (Hardware T&L)
    Radeon - 1682 (Software T&L)
    Kyro - 1570
    G400 - 1257

    The Kyro should do better, but due to a bug in DX8 (which will be fixed in the next release according to MS) Tile Based Renderers suffer under 3DMark2001. This is according to Pottsey (Kyro guru from the Beyond3D forum).

    2D quality:
    Nothing surpricing, Matrox is the best, the Radeon is close behind (1600x1200 is almost usable on my screen, but not quite), and the Kyro lacks far behind.

    General impressions:
    The Kyro card is the most interesting, as far as technology and potential goes. With new drivers and BIOS releases this card might become quite a bit faster still, I've seen good improvements from the driver/BIOS upgrades I've done. The 2D is not that good, the Powercolor card I have might be worse than the other Kyros out there, who knows ?

    The Radeon is pretty darned good. About the same speed as the Kyro, better drivers (disregarding Win2K) and T&L engine. The 2D is as good as it gets when it doesn't say Matrox on the card I guess.

    My conclusion ... well, if I had saved the money I spent on the two cards and bought a faster Thunderbird (an AXIA perhaps), I bet my performance would be comparable (not in 1024x768x32 however), my 2D would be better, and I would get a bigger performance gain whenever Matrox releases a new card

    As for now, the Radeon stays in my gaming machine, the G400 stays in the secondary machine, and the Kyro waits for BIOS/driver updates
    "That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"

    P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFT

  • #2
    CHHAS,

    I was pretty interested in the KyroII when I first heard about it. My interest dropped some when I read an "Asking Mr.Sweeney" article over at Voodoo Extreme
    Tim Sweeney had some discouraging words about the KyroII.
    "ps - What's your take on the kyro2 and tile based rendering?

    Tim - It's a competent TNT2 class chip, and the sorting and alpha-testing artefacts of past generations seem to have been sorted out successfully. But, like every generation of PowerVR hardware before it, it's a day late and a dollar short. It lacks support for basic DirectX7 (yes, 7!) features like cube maps. The kyro developers are cool guys, so it pains me to say that this is just not a viable piece of hardware in the market it's trying to compete in."
    The whole article can be found HERE


    ------------------
    MatroxG400MAX..and some other stuff

    Comment


    • #3
      Hey Tom,

      don't trust Tim Sweeney blindly ...

      I've seen the Hercules 4500 Kyro-II on CeBIT, running UT in 1600x1200x16bpp a little above 50fps average !!!

      I don't know of any TNT 2 class chip that can go that fast, do you ?



      Cheers,
      Maggi
      Despite my nickname causing confusion, I am not female ...

      ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional
      Intel Core i7-3930K@4.3GHz
      be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 2
      4x 8GB G.Skill TridentX PC3-19200U@CR1
      2x MSI N670GTX PE OC (SLI)
      OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
      4x2TB Seagate Barracuda Green 5900.3 (2x4TB RAID0)
      Super Flower Golden Green Modular 800W
      Nanoxia Deep Silence 1
      LG BH10LS38
      LG DM2752D 27" 3D

      Comment


      • #4
        Maggi:

        My Radeon SDR runs UT in 1600x1200x16 at around 40 FPS average with my Duron 866.

        The 50 FPS average isn't really that impressive in comparison, considering the price for a Kyro 2 is double the price of a Radeon SDR in Denmark. I'm quite sure a Radeon LE (with the register tweaks) can manage 50 FPS.

        As for Mr Sweeney's comments, take a look at the Beyond3D forums, they're having a nice heated debate about it
        "That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"

        P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFT

        Comment


        • #5
          <font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by CHHAS:
          Maggi:

          My Radeon SDR runs UT in 1600x1200x16 at around 40 FPS average with my Duron 866.

          The 50 FPS average isn't really that impressive in comparison, considering the price for a Kyro 2 is double the price of a Radeon SDR in Denmark. I'm quite sure a Radeon LE (with the register tweaks) can manage 50 FPS.

          As for Mr Sweeney's comments, take a look at the Beyond3D forums, they're having a nice heated debate about it
          </font>
          But going from 40 to 50fps on average equals to a gain of 25%, which isn't too shaby.

          Besides that I had no chance to look into their UT settings so basically we're just comparing apples with peaches ...

          Though the subjective gameplay (read: sustained fps) seemed to be very high without any heavy slowdowns under D3D.
          OpenGL was a different topic though, it got slower and slower the longer the demo ran, so I suspect they had a memory in their drivers which was probably the main reason why Hercules didn't want to show UT running in OGL, but nevertheless, that guy at their booth was kind enough to give it a go for me.



          I just hope that upcoming driver revision won't castrate the performance of Kyro-II.

          CU,
          Maggi
          Despite my nickname causing confusion, I am not female ...

          ASRock Fatal1ty X79 Professional
          Intel Core i7-3930K@4.3GHz
          be quiet! Dark Rock Pro 2
          4x 8GB G.Skill TridentX PC3-19200U@CR1
          2x MSI N670GTX PE OC (SLI)
          OCZ Vertex 4 256GB
          4x2TB Seagate Barracuda Green 5900.3 (2x4TB RAID0)
          Super Flower Golden Green Modular 800W
          Nanoxia Deep Silence 1
          LG BH10LS38
          LG DM2752D 27" 3D

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree that without knowing the exact settings comparing can be very hard

            I just tried running 1600x1200x32 in OpenGL with the S3TC textures from CD2, I got an average of around 35 FPS, which isn't really playable, but not too shabby either, with a fast Tbird and/or a DDR version of the Radeon, that resolution might become very playable. I just have this apprehension about buying an expensive graphics card (maybe not an expensive Matrox card though)
            "That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"

            P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFT

            Comment


            • #7
              Maggi,

              Good point about Sweeney..
              I realize that the KyroII is MUCH faster than the TNT2 chips, but does it somehow cheat (the same way nVidia chips don't do real trilinear filtering like the Matrox chips)or does the tile-based rendering really make up the speed difference?


              ------------------
              MatroxG400MAX..and some other stuff

              Comment


              • #8
                I had a Kyro 1 (overclocked @ 175 just like a Kyro 2) and it's performance was on par with the GeForce 2 GTS in most games... It doesn't cheat , it just has less work to do! I'm sure you know how tile-based rendering works, so I won't get into details... However, I didn't keep it because of the 2D quality (I have a Sony E400 runnning 1600x1200x32bits) BTW, the Kyro 3 (4 pixel piepelines -can do 4 x 1texel pixels or 2 x 2texels pixels per cycle-, a programmable T&L engine and a 300 MHz RAMDAC) is scheduled for Q3-Q4 2001, so it looks like the GeForce 4, GeFOrce 3 MX, Radeon 2, G550, G800 andCOlumbia will get a run for their money... Don't you just love competition ?

                Francis,


                ------------------
                What was necessary was done yesterday;
                We're currently working on the impossible;
                For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...
                What was necessary was done yesterday;
                We're currently working on the impossible;
                For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

                (Workstation)
                - Intel - Xeon X3210 @ 3.2 GHz on Asus P5E
                - 2x OCZ Gold DDR2-800 1 GB
                - ATI Radeon HD2900PRO & Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe
                - 2x Seagate B.11 500 GB GB SATA
                - ATI TV-Wonder 550 PCI-E
                (Server)
                - Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66 GHz on Asus P5L-MX
                - 2x Crucial DDR2-667 1GB
                - ATI X1900 XTX 512 MB
                - 2x Maxtor D.10 200 GB SATA

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Kyro doesn't cheat, what it does is it completely removes overdraw (drawing of subjects hidden by others). In typical games the overdraw level is 2 to 3, so it only has to render half to a third of the polygons of a traditional renderer.
                  "That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"

                  P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFT

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi,
                    Well, that's not exactly true; HSR occurs after the polygons are placed, before the pixels are textured... That's why HSR not only saves on fillrates; but on bandwidth (textures transfert); the triangles info doesn't represent such a big share of the bandwidth.

                    BTW, a Radeon 32 MB LE or DDR (the same thing, slightly different settings) are much faster than a Radeon SDR...mroe than %25 faster at high-res...

                    ------------------
                    What was necessary was done yesterday;
                    We're currently working on the impossible;
                    For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

                    [This message has been edited by frankymail (edited 19 April 2001).]
                    What was necessary was done yesterday;
                    We're currently working on the impossible;
                    For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

                    (Workstation)
                    - Intel - Xeon X3210 @ 3.2 GHz on Asus P5E
                    - 2x OCZ Gold DDR2-800 1 GB
                    - ATI Radeon HD2900PRO & Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe
                    - 2x Seagate B.11 500 GB GB SATA
                    - ATI TV-Wonder 550 PCI-E
                    (Server)
                    - Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66 GHz on Asus P5L-MX
                    - 2x Crucial DDR2-667 1GB
                    - ATI X1900 XTX 512 MB
                    - 2x Maxtor D.10 200 GB SATA

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My bad

                      That just goes to show how bandwidth limited traditional renderers are. The fillrate of a Kyro 1 is only 65% of that of a Geforce MX and still the performance is about even.
                      "That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"

                      P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFT

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yep, the Kyro II is a great 3D card (I just hope its 2D quality is FAR greater than the original Kyro's), but it is MUCH faster than the GeForce 2 MX; in newer games like serious sam, giants, alice, x-com enforcer and others, the Kyro II is as fast as a GeFOrce 2 -ULTRA- , and sometimes bests it!!!
                        I just hope Matrox is working hard on their next high-end chip, because it will have A LOT of competition . . .

                        ------------------
                        What was necessary was done yesterday;
                        We're currently working on the impossible;
                        For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...
                        What was necessary was done yesterday;
                        We're currently working on the impossible;
                        For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

                        (Workstation)
                        - Intel - Xeon X3210 @ 3.2 GHz on Asus P5E
                        - 2x OCZ Gold DDR2-800 1 GB
                        - ATI Radeon HD2900PRO & Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe
                        - 2x Seagate B.11 500 GB GB SATA
                        - ATI TV-Wonder 550 PCI-E
                        (Server)
                        - Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66 GHz on Asus P5L-MX
                        - 2x Crucial DDR2-667 1GB
                        - ATI X1900 XTX 512 MB
                        - 2x Maxtor D.10 200 GB SATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh, sorry, you were referring to the Kyro 1 . . . My mistake

                          Francis

                          ------------------
                          What was necessary was done yesterday;
                          We're currently working on the impossible;
                          For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...
                          What was necessary was done yesterday;
                          We're currently working on the impossible;
                          For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

                          (Workstation)
                          - Intel - Xeon X3210 @ 3.2 GHz on Asus P5E
                          - 2x OCZ Gold DDR2-800 1 GB
                          - ATI Radeon HD2900PRO & Matrox Millennium G550 PCIe
                          - 2x Seagate B.11 500 GB GB SATA
                          - ATI TV-Wonder 550 PCI-E
                          (Server)
                          - Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.66 GHz on Asus P5L-MX
                          - 2x Crucial DDR2-667 1GB
                          - ATI X1900 XTX 512 MB
                          - 2x Maxtor D.10 200 GB SATA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Just a quick update. I returned the Radeon today, as the G550 rumours seems quite solid to me.
                            I'll just have to live with a desktop resolution of 1024x768 until then
                            "That's right fool! Now I'm a flying talking donkey!"

                            P4 2.66, 512 mb PC2700, ATI Radeon 9000, Seagate Barracude IV 80 gb, Acer Al 732 17" TFT

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              CHHAS,

                              I hope that there is some truth to this G550 rumour....this time!

                              ------------------
                              MatroxG400MAX..and some other stuff

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X