Kyro II image quality

[sash1]

We all know that the Kyro II has no TnL engine (what a drag...), but hey, not many cards have TBR, so...

But how will having no TnL effect its image quality. I know not having it slows down its performance in some games (especially in the newer games), but how is the image quality effected? does it look any worse than if it had a TnL engine?

Does anyone have any screenshots of a Kyro II and say a GeForce 2 GTS (or anything above the MX400)?

Are the lighting affects worse with a K2? Is the shading bad? Is the whole screen bright, or does it give you the effect of streetlights and gun flashes and such?

Thanks in advance

 

[PotNoodle]

? But how will having no TnL effect its image quality. I know not having it slows down its performance in some games (especially in the newer games), but how is the image quality effected? does it look any worse than if it had a TnL engine??

That is purely dependant on the game, and how it implements T&L.

For instance, MDK2 has two ?geometry? piplines, one for software T&L and one for hardware; the software T&L code is a little cut down to make it perform better on CPU, and it (I believe) approximates the lighting. However, if Hardware T&L is used then different code is used that just goes over the standard transformation pipeline ? this results in better lighting in some cases.

Some games (Max Payne for example) have no difference between software and hardware T&L - the level of detail is selectable at the start and that dictates the geometry that is being produced and it will not look any different with T&L on or off (it may just be faster with T&L on if you have a slower CPU).

T&L pipeline differences aside, the general 3D IQ of KYROII if often cited as being pretty nice becuase of all of its operations run on the tile, and not just in 15bit mode either. This is from The Tech Reports KYROII Review:

"The Kyro II's implementation of deferred rendering produces unimpeachable results. Using the card, you'd never know that what's going on inside the chip is so radically different from everything else. That's no mean feat, considering the Kyro II must process API calls intended for conventional graphics chips and handle them seamlessly.

Standing on deck, you'd never know it was a three-legged dwarf rowing the boat.

The image quality is on a par with any of its more conventional rivals, and in many cases, the Kyro II's output looks cleaner and sharper to my eye. Imagination Tech's claims about higher precision for pixel blending rings true. I swear I can see the difference at times; transparencies just look cleaner.

The PowerVR hype machine spends a lot of time talking about "internal true color" with reference to 16-bit color rendering. The basic gist of it is this: the chip renders everything internally at 32 bits, even when it's using a 16-bit color video mode. But why would anyone ever use 16-bit color mode on this thing? The Kyro sports loads of pixel-pushing power, so why bother?

Anyhow, the Kyro's output is quite nice. Compliments to the dwarf."

 

[sash1]

Thanks PotNoodle,

Looks like I won't have much trouble with the looks aspect of sw TnL.

Thanks for the link, a lot of good info there.


<< We've noted above that deferred rendering saves on some lighting work, though, so that may not matter so much >>


And that village mark score is INSANE! How the hell did the K2 do so well? The linkage is here: first test

I wish they'd make games wit so much overdraw, everything ides out except for the Kyro II,