hum...
this new chp is very very good...
look at this...
http://www.geocities.com/johnrreyn [...] _truth.htm
 
and this:
http://www.voodoosource.net/
or this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/18092.html
 
Nvidia is afraid...
So this is a great product...
I will buy a new kyro 2 !!!!!!!!!!
maybe an hercules based card...

Well I've read a few reviews about it and it doesn't look SO good.  Of course, it's a lot cheaper but if you want top quality, you gotta stay with Nvidia.  It all depends on your needs
 
Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear, Fuzzy Wuzzy had no hair...

A promising card, as far as the technology principle goes. More like a proof of concept, but still a way to go before it beats GeForce. Kyro III, maybe? Kyro II is not <i>that</i> impressive yet. Only succeeded in one or two benchmarks, and mediocre in the others.
 
Leo

It looks pretty decent as price/performance. The technology behind it is kinda weird/cool, but it's nothing for Nvidia to be piss-pantsing themselves about.
 
It's better to be pissed off than pissed on

Well, yes. I, for one, would only agree that having competition will only make things better. I'll be on a lookout for the developments in the Kyro family.
 
Leo

I am awaiting for this cool chip to hit the streets. The geocities article and break down of (supposenly by nVidia) is inmaterial. The chipset will prove itself or not on the market and game developers. The benchmarks for this very intelligent designed gem with only some 15 million transistors compared to the 50 million something transistor the G3 sports is really funny especially comparing real world benchmarks by reviewers to the GF3. Not saying the KyroII beats the GF3 but the question becomes, is the GF3 performance worth the extra $200-$300 extra? I hope other card makers give a choice to their customers and future customers not only the KyroII design but also S3. What would a super charged s3 2000 chip do? Also if ATI would sell more chipsets to card markers even a broader choice would be available for us to make and the days of $400-$500 video cards will be over.

not good ????

for a 150$ it's good for me...
 
this card can achieve better results even with lower average fps ....
 
let's focus on what this kyro does and what a traditional card doesn´t:
 
it does not draw any pixel that will be obscured by something... so when all the others get 10-15 fps in more complex scenes (even if the average fps is above 50, that is one of the reasons to have more than 100 fps with a traditional card...)
 
 the drop will not get visible if the scene requires more fill rate ... this card will achieve better results at least on my eyes... (higher lower fps ) I don't care about average benchmarking ...
 
by the way even in the average benchmarking the kyro wins in some benchmarking against a card that is 400$ more expensive...
I must say this:
with the money that I spend in a geforce 3  
 I can buy 3 generations of kyro ...
so buy the best card out there go ahead... buy the geforce 3
I will buy the best price/performance card out there...

Sorry about my poor english...
 
p.s.
if the developers take in account this kyro then they also may apply some optimizations like...
NOT DO IN SOFWARE WHAT THIS CARD DO IN HARDWARE (taking out "some" of the triangles that will not be visible in software...)
IMAGINE THE PROCESSING POWER UNLEASHED BY THIS OPTIMIZATION !!!!

The reviews make the Kyro II look like a mixed bag, some good attributes and some less good.  However, a very interesting feature is the Kyro II's FSAA comes with <b>NO</b> performance penalty, meaning pretty good performance but excellent video quality, all in a budget oriented card.

agreed, the kyro II has so many good things about it but has some questionable attributes about it that can only be tested out when we see a final version on the pcb and official drivers.  Mid april seems to far away

I'm anxious to hear about personal experiences with Kyro II when it becomes available.  I've been looking for a budget card and unless the Kyro II is significantly better I will probably go with the Radeon LE.  Price will make a difference.

I expect the Kyro II to go the way of the S3 Savage4. It will probably be only a matter of time when ATI, NVIDIA, and Matrox adapt Tile Based Rendering to their cards. Not now but maybe for the next generation of graphics cards. (Radeon LE2, GeForce 3 MX, G600, or whatever they will call them.)
Let's hope Kyro can keep up with (or ahead of) the competition so that they (NVIDIA, ATI, Matrox) are forced to put out better, faster, and cheaper cards.
 
Believe me, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

i doubt nvidia is seriously frightened by the new kyro card or plan on aggressively pursuing tile based rendering (although i believe that was in the 3dfx bag of goodies).
 
"Beyond3D : Can traditional renderers overcome the problems that Tile-Based solutions solve through their structure? Like the rendering of 8-layer multitextured pixels that will never be visible, the horrible memory access patterns with smaller and smaller polygons (where many OD algorithms like early Z and hierarchical systems also fail to work effectively), the huge memory abuse when doing AA, costly stencil procedures, expensive memory-readback when doing multi-pass effects? Its easy to nag about the buffering issue that tilers might or might not have in the future, what about all these bottlenecks in traditional systems? Not to mention the issues when using more accurate frame buffers, 64bit floats?  
 
Croteam : Tile-Based rendering can be a very good solution for the present time. But I don't think that it will hold much longer. Brute-force approach with its power, has already hit the limits of the monitor resolution. It all comes to two things: either developers will completely embrace tile-based rendering and adopt their engines to that, or we'll all stick to simplier brute force solutions. Tile based rendering will always be faster than brute-force, but who needs (potential) complications of TBR, when brute-force approach is already fast enough.  
 
MadOnion : The technology is not as important as the end result. Currently best results have been achieved with the "traditional" 3D accelerator types. Both can be made to work, but a tile based system may probably be more cost-effective in the long run.  
 
Basically, game developers could not care less how it's made if it renders fast, has good feature set and they don't need to think about any special cases.  
 
NVIDIA : There are pros and cons to any architecture. I believe in the future, we are moving toward more and more geometry, as well as more and more per-pixel shading and computation. Both of these directions require more muscular and powerful pipelines. Tile-based renderers don't address these needs. The optimization provided by a tile-based renderer is that occluded pixels that don't contribute to the final picture also don't contribute to the bandwidth consumption at the memory. In the limit, a tile-based renderer optimizes out that redundance, and provides only a minimal impact to buffering and re-scanning of command streams and geometry. In the limit, a conventional renderer with occlusion culling has exactly the same performance. In each case, we have separated the visibility (what is on top) from the shading. "
 
from <A HREF="http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/croteammonv/index1.php" target="_new">http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/croteammonv/index1.php</A>

well did you know that most of the patents are in the hands of the guys who produced kyro ???
(imagination technologies)
so..
yah..
they could produce a tile and rendering chip but :
1. they have to pay royalties to imagination
2. it was required years of investigation to produce a tile chip so good...
3. we al now that spec's is allmoust everything (mhz etc...)
and this card achieve better results than chips clocked way higher... with speediers memories.. and that sells too...
if you see a card clocked at 175 and other at 250, what would be the card of your choise???
the better one or the one with better spec ???
many would chose the better spec's...
and nvidia know that...
so...
about kyro do no compare kyro with savage ...
that make me laugh...
did you ever played dreamcast or a sega arcade???
the newer ones are based upon older imagination (tile chip) with transform and lighting on it...
so...

yap it is significant better....
at least in higher resolutions..
1024x768 and up
well geforce gts cannot achieve better for example in quake3...
look at this:
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1435
that will answer you.
 take note that this was a preproducing chip a pre-producing driver (very stable nevertheless)
it will be even better...
that is why nvidia is getting afraid..
please visit the site that I told you..
in may or late april we will get the newer cards unless nvidia achieves what trying to do (on the pdf that I told you.... )
http://www.geocities.com/johnrreyn [...] n_kyro.pdf  
and we get few cards on the shops...
few means higher prices...

<A HREF="http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/previews/hercules_3dprophet_4500_kyro2/8.shtml" target="_new">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/previews/hercules_3dprophet_4500_kyro2/8.shtml</A>
Looks like Kyro II got butt raped by Ati and nvidia in the Evolva bench.
 
Believe me, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And thats the shape of things to come. All 3D games from now on will utilise t&L to an extent, and the Kyro will be crippled from its weaknesses. Come-on its just a faster kyro, with no technological improvments.
 
As I know, 3DFX were researching hidden surface removal. nVidia currently owns all of that and perhaps will introduce it in the next product cycle. If they do that, Imagination Tech wont get a penny off them!
 
Its the same problem over again, the PowerVR couldn't stand up to 3DFX Voodoo. power vr2 based neon, again was far weaker than the competition. They need to include T&L at the minimum on the next card. I don't think the Kyro 2 is going anywhere big.
 
 
<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

Do you think that t&l will get implemented in future games..
yah!!!
but for the geforce3...
the T&L of geforce 3 is way to different of the Fixed T&L of geforce 1 & 2 ...

yours geforces will have to do this T&L via software...
lol
the evolva is funtioning great with my kyro I ... of course in windows 9x...
maybe there's a bug in the game in windows 2000
or in the drivers ... who cares...
99% of games runs well on windows 2000

on a KYRO I ...
I think that kyro II will be better don't you think ??

 
 
 
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by powervr2 on 04/05/01 12:41 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Well ATi radeon has  
 
A from of tile base rendering (not as good as the kyro)
HyperZ (The best solution for a z-buffer)
T&L (Nice to have around)
 
Radeon 32mb DDR is on the same level as the Geforce2 GTS cost $130 cheap. The new drivers rule.
 
!!! Leader of the Anti-via army !!!

You cannot do T&L in software, as it is just a given name to performing the Geometry and lighting calculations in hardware. You cannot perform these in software with a fraction of the performance.
 
 
<i>the T&L of geforce 3 is way to different of the Fixed T&L of geforce 1 & 2 ...

yours geforces will have to do this T&L via software...
</i>
 
You mean nFinite FX. They wont be used on anything below the GF3 but the T&L will run just the same. so, the performance or quality wont be anywhere near the GF3 but completely playable and way faster than the Kyro.
 
 
<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>