I am going to be upgradeing my video card and I have decided to go with a new voodoo. I do not play Quake or any other 1sy person shooter so rediculous frame rates are not my thing. I do play Diablo II, Starcraft, Alpha Centari, Balders GAte and other RPGs, Simulation, and RTS games. So frame rates are important, but so is eye-candy. The thing is, I am not sure if i want to spend $300 on a new card. I could much more afford to spend $150 or maybe $200, but is it worth it? How do the other cards from 3dfx compare to the Voodoo 5 550? What is the performance differnace there? Does anyone know of an article that really compares them?
3DFX Voodoo4 -vs- Voodoo 5 550
- Thread starter MahaviraKhan
- Start date
Dont even think about the Voodoo4... the Voodoo5 5500 offers very little new.. get a GeForce2 MX, cheaper than the Voodoo4 and sometimes as fast as the Voodoo5 5500
[[EDIT]]
[[EDIT]]
the voodoo4 is a ridiculous card, noone sane will buy it.....too expensive and performs badly......
the voodoo5 5500 is a good card, but you won't need it......I'd say find a Voodoo3 3000, you can probably get it for $80 or less.....it'll give you nice 2d and 3d for a low price, plus give you very good drivers, stability and compatibility
the voodoo5 5500 is a good card, but you won't need it......I'd say find a Voodoo3 3000, you can probably get it for $80 or less.....it'll give you nice 2d and 3d for a low price, plus give you very good drivers, stability and compatibility
arg you even say it's cheaper than the voodoo4! since when? flush your NVIDIA bias'edness a little will you? 
I only play RPG's and my Vodoo 3 does a superb job plus if you check the Hot Deals forum you can find it for about $70.
Now what about Diablo II? That is not just 2D? Many of my games are only 2D though yes, but I still want to be able to do good 3D and I want the best bang for the buck. I have read that 3dfx has the best eye-candy and that their image quality is better than the Geforce.
I don't think I want a Voodoo3 because it only has 16bit color and I do not want to give up 32bit color. I have read some about the Geforce2 MX and that does not seem like a bad card... Would it be a better choice than the Voodoo4? I read that the Voodoo4 is compareable to the original Geforce and so is the MX in terms of Frame-rates and such. And if so, and the Voodoo has better 2D I do know, that why would the MX be better?
I am not saying the Voodoo 4 is what I want. It might suck like you said. I just don't know. =) Does anyone know of a review for the Voodoo4 or a comparison??
I don't think I want a Voodoo3 because it only has 16bit color and I do not want to give up 32bit color. I have read some about the Geforce2 MX and that does not seem like a bad card... Would it be a better choice than the Voodoo4? I read that the Voodoo4 is compareable to the original Geforce and so is the MX in terms of Frame-rates and such. And if so, and the Voodoo has better 2D I do know, that why would the MX be better?
I am not saying the Voodoo 4 is what I want. It might suck like you said. I just don't know. =) Does anyone know of a review for the Voodoo4 or a comparison??
AFAIK the V4 has no release date... If you are wanting good 2D (and fairly good 3D) you should take a look at a Matrox G400 MAX.
MadRat
The fact that the Voodoo4 isnt out is disapointing
The fact that the Voodoo4 performes like a year old card is disapointing
The fact that the voodoo4 costs more than the GeForce2 MX is disapointing
I think the voodoo4 is the biggest flunk 3dfx has ever made
The fact that the Voodoo4 isnt out is disapointing
The fact that the Voodoo4 performes like a year old card is disapointing
The fact that the voodoo4 costs more than the GeForce2 MX is disapointing
I think the voodoo4 is the biggest flunk 3dfx has ever made
Why is the Voodoo 4 disappointing? 32-bit color, better texture compression than Nvidia cards, 2x FSAA. In most games outside the Quake 3, 3dmark 2000 conspiracy, I'd imagine it will play games as well as a Geforce MX, probably better in games like Deus Ex, Unreal Tournament, oh and it should actually run Diablo 2 unlike most Geforce cards.
The Voodoo4 performes about the same as a TNT2 card, and I dont realy want to try to imagine how it would performe with 2x FSAA. It might be ok running it with FSAA in 1-2 year old games but not new ones.
Not a single game uses 3dfx's texture compression, I agree that it is better than S3TC but S3TC is becoming a standard.
Games like UT and DeusEX are not slow on other cards because of slow hardware, just because of badly coded software.
Not a single game uses 3dfx's texture compression, I agree that it is better than S3TC but S3TC is becoming a standard.
Games like UT and DeusEX are not slow on other cards because of slow hardware, just because of badly coded software.
To be fair, mostly V4 4500 is faster than TNT2U. Part of the reason is probably due to the support of texture compression. But everyone expects much more for a such new graphic card which still not in sale yet.
[speculation]
V4 4500 would have been a great competitive card if it is as cheap as TNT2U or V3 3000 NOW. But since it is going to have a price tag of $150 or more, very likely a $120 yet much faster GeForce MX would eat it as snack.
[/speculation]
[speculation]
V4 4500 would have been a great competitive card if it is as cheap as TNT2U or V3 3000 NOW. But since it is going to have a price tag of $150 or more, very likely a $120 yet much faster GeForce MX would eat it as snack.
[/speculation]
Its faster than TnT2, V3 because I believe it has double the texture pipelines. Also Czar you're wrong about FxT1 not being used, with one line Q3 substitutes S3TC calls for FXT1 calls.
MGallik
Golden Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 1,787
- 4
- 81
I have a V5 5500.
I've tried the V5 with only one chip running which is what
the V4 4500 is. At resolutions of 1024*768 and below it's only a
few frames behind the V5.
If you dont run any higher res than that, you wont notice any real
difference at all.
With that kind of speed, FSAA x2 in your RPG games, 32bit color,
and Glide I'd call it a pretty complete package.
As you will notice in Anands benchmarks, it's faster than the V3 3000's
and the TNT2 Ultra's.
I have Diablo II and it has FAQ's all over in the Readme's about
problems with the GeForces, sad, but true. The MX may not be any different.
If the MX is $120 and the V4 is $150, I'd buy the V4. The only smoke'em
blow'em away game I've seen for the GF's is Q3, and I think it's crude
compared to UT, which, by the way, flys in Glide.
Just my 2 cents but I call 'em as I see 'em. And yes, I had a DDR and
returned it, the 2D was sub par and it destabilized my system.
edit: spelling, sort of..
I've tried the V5 with only one chip running which is what
the V4 4500 is. At resolutions of 1024*768 and below it's only a
few frames behind the V5.
If you dont run any higher res than that, you wont notice any real
difference at all.
With that kind of speed, FSAA x2 in your RPG games, 32bit color,
and Glide I'd call it a pretty complete package.
As you will notice in Anands benchmarks, it's faster than the V3 3000's
and the TNT2 Ultra's.
I have Diablo II and it has FAQ's all over in the Readme's about
problems with the GeForces, sad, but true. The MX may not be any different.
If the MX is $120 and the V4 is $150, I'd buy the V4. The only smoke'em
blow'em away game I've seen for the GF's is Q3, and I think it's crude
compared to UT, which, by the way, flys in Glide.
Just my 2 cents but I call 'em as I see 'em. And yes, I had a DDR and
returned it, the 2D was sub par and it destabilized my system.
edit: spelling, sort of..
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,971
- 288
- 126
Finally a voice of reason.
V4's design is not 1 year old technology. Its a low end version of the V5 for Pete's sake. The V5 has a very nice looking feel to the display. The DDR isn't really any different IMO, because I play most games well within the bandwidth limits (800x600) of lesser cards. When I graduate from my 19" monitor to a 35" monitor I'll worry about 1600x1200 and higher.
V4's design is not 1 year old technology. Its a low end version of the V5 for Pete's sake. The V5 has a very nice looking feel to the display. The DDR isn't really any different IMO, because I play most games well within the bandwidth limits (800x600) of lesser cards. When I graduate from my 19" monitor to a 35" monitor I'll worry about 1600x1200 and higher.
"I've tried the V5 with only one chip running which is what
the V4 4500 is. At resolutions of 1024*768 and below it's only a
few frames behind the V5."
Just a few frames? I guess no.
Taken from Anand's GeForce MX review:
Athlon 750 Q3A
1024x768x32
V5 5500: 65.7
V4 4500: 33.6
1280x1024x32
V5 5500: 42.1
V4 4500: 19.0
Under fillrate limited situations, V4 4500 is exactly a single-arm V5 5500. If V4 4500 were just a few frames behind, who gonna buy V5 5500?
"If the MX is $120 and the V4 is $150, I'd buy the V4. The only smoke'em
blow'em away game I've seen for the GF's is Q3, and I think it's crude
compared to UT, which, by the way, flys in Glide."
Lets fire up some UT scores:
Athlon 750
1024x768x32
V5 5500: 53.2
V4 4500: 33.2
GF MX: 45.9
1280x1024x32
V5 5500: 41.0
V4 4500: 18.0
GF MX: 32.3
Exactly the same as in Q3A, V4 4500 at the best only has 50% power of V5 5500. And GeForce MX beating V4 by a big margin in UT as well.
MGallik, sorry for shooting u down, because I've just freshly read GeForce MX review so the numbers still aren't forgotten completely.
the V4 4500 is. At resolutions of 1024*768 and below it's only a
few frames behind the V5."
Just a few frames? I guess no.
Taken from Anand's GeForce MX review:
Athlon 750 Q3A
1024x768x32
V5 5500: 65.7
V4 4500: 33.6
1280x1024x32
V5 5500: 42.1
V4 4500: 19.0
Under fillrate limited situations, V4 4500 is exactly a single-arm V5 5500. If V4 4500 were just a few frames behind, who gonna buy V5 5500?
"If the MX is $120 and the V4 is $150, I'd buy the V4. The only smoke'em
blow'em away game I've seen for the GF's is Q3, and I think it's crude
compared to UT, which, by the way, flys in Glide."
Lets fire up some UT scores:
Athlon 750
1024x768x32
V5 5500: 53.2
V4 4500: 33.2
GF MX: 45.9
1280x1024x32
V5 5500: 41.0
V4 4500: 18.0
GF MX: 32.3
Exactly the same as in Q3A, V4 4500 at the best only has 50% power of V5 5500. And GeForce MX beating V4 by a big margin in UT as well.
MGallik, sorry for shooting u down, because I've just freshly read GeForce MX review so the numbers still aren't forgotten completely.
With the games that you play, you might want to go for the voodoo5 because of FSAA alone. You're games will look beautiful.
Orbius -
Its faster than TnT2, V3 because I believe it has double the texture pipelines
Not true. The V4 has 2 pixel pipes with no multitexturing. The TnT2 has 2 pixel pipes with no multitexturing. The V3 has 1 pixel pipe with 2 texturing units per pipe. Just for sake of comparison I'll throw in the GF2 MX - 2 pixel pipes with 2 texturing units per pipe.
Fillrates are as follows:
V4(166MHz)- 333Mpix/s, 333Mtex/s
TnT2U(150MHz)- 300Mpix/s, 300Mtex/s
V3(166MHz)- 166Mpix/s, 333Mtex/s
GF2MX(175MHz)- 350Mpix/s, 700Mtex/s
As you can see the performance of the V4 is not staggering, but they did add the features you previously mentioned.
Its faster than TnT2, V3 because I believe it has double the texture pipelines
Not true. The V4 has 2 pixel pipes with no multitexturing. The TnT2 has 2 pixel pipes with no multitexturing. The V3 has 1 pixel pipe with 2 texturing units per pipe. Just for sake of comparison I'll throw in the GF2 MX - 2 pixel pipes with 2 texturing units per pipe.
Fillrates are as follows:
V4(166MHz)- 333Mpix/s, 333Mtex/s
TnT2U(150MHz)- 300Mpix/s, 300Mtex/s
V3(166MHz)- 166Mpix/s, 333Mtex/s
GF2MX(175MHz)- 350Mpix/s, 700Mtex/s
As you can see the performance of the V4 is not staggering, but they did add the features you previously mentioned.
MahaviraKhan...what's your current video card?
If it's a Voodoo3, just wait until prices of the V5 5500 drops. Diablo II and Starcraft still runs great w/o problems with the V3.
If it's a Voodoo3, just wait until prices of the V5 5500 drops. Diablo II and Starcraft still runs great w/o problems with the V3.
ahfung, you're comparing at the 32bit color depth level.
I have a V5. There's no difference between 16bit and 32bit rendering to my eye in Q3A. 16bit vs 32bit texture, there's a difference, but not when one uses 16bit rendering.
In that respect, the "V4-4500" scores about 15 to 25 frames/sec behind the V5-5500 at 1024x768. At 800x600, it's not a problem.
GLide for UT is faster until you go to 1280x1024. If you're buying a V4-4500, you're not planning on playing at those resolutions, anyway.
I'd say get the V5-5500, only because I've not seen the V4-4500 anywhere. Look around for some online deals and try to get a 5500, or wait for the 6000 to come out and get one from someone who sells theirs to replace it with a 6000.
Just my $0.02
I have a V5. There's no difference between 16bit and 32bit rendering to my eye in Q3A. 16bit vs 32bit texture, there's a difference, but not when one uses 16bit rendering.
In that respect, the "V4-4500" scores about 15 to 25 frames/sec behind the V5-5500 at 1024x768. At 800x600, it's not a problem.
GLide for UT is faster until you go to 1280x1024. If you're buying a V4-4500, you're not planning on playing at those resolutions, anyway.
I'd say get the V5-5500, only because I've not seen the V4-4500 anywhere. Look around for some online deals and try to get a 5500, or wait for the 6000 to come out and get one from someone who sells theirs to replace it with a 6000.
Just my $0.02
the voodoo4 will be a good performer at 800x600 and maybe 1024 x 768. but not any higher in any game that requires torque. it depends on the price and the games you play, Gilde is there, glide maybe fading but it's not dead yet, Is it worth the money over a V3?? that just depends on your wallet and needs. What is a better bargain than 70 dollars for a V3?? Nothing, esp. if you going pci
the v4 will have better graphics than the V3, you will have to decide if it's worth twice the price
maybe get a good deal on v3 now, then if you want something better sell it a friend, and buy a better card when the price comes down, which should only be about 4 to 6 months
the v4 will have better graphics than the V3, you will have to decide if it's worth twice the price
maybe get a good deal on v3 now, then if you want something better sell it a friend, and buy a better card when the price comes down, which should only be about 4 to 6 months
Right now I have an ATI All-in-Wonder 128. The 2D is ok, but it only has a 250mhz RAMDAC. Nothing compared to the standard 350mhz that the new cards have. I use to do a good deal of video editing and capture, but I switched to win2k back in Feb and I have not been able to do it sense. I know ATI has some beta drivers out and such but they are unstable with my system. I can only capture for 6-10min then my system locks. Anyway, that is not what this thread is about.
3D sucks with my card. My frame rates suck so hard it hurts. Next to things associated with school, Playing games is the #1 thing I do with my PC, and really it most likely is THE #1 thing. Based on certain views expressed here in the thread, perhaps a voodoo 3000 would not be so bad. Is there a big differance in performance between the PCI version and the AGP version? what is the hit? and really what about the Voodoo 5? Is there a big hit with the PCI version over the AGP?? My ATI card is AGP, so I guess I could have 2 cards and get a PCI card, but I would much rather just replace the one I have with a new AGp card, especially if there is a big differance. Also against the Voodoo3, I am not into spending $80 now than another $120 in a few months. I would rather just spend $200 now a get a better card because that is how much I would be spending anyway.
Now, I have also read and heard of many many problems that plauge Nvida and the cards, especailly the Geforce. Stability is important, and so the idea of having to constantly tweak and change the drivers and settings just to play my games is not my idea of the most fun. I do think 3dfx has a better reputation of stability based on facts.
But that still leaves me with my question unanswered. Which is best? Voodoo4? 5? Geforce MX? Ahfung and MGallik do you guys have links to back up the frame rates? I most will not go above 1024x768 very often becuase my monitor only supports up to 1280x1024. And if the image looks good enough, and the frame rates are high enough, why bother going any higher? That is enough for me I think.
So which one.... and when will the Voodoo4 and the Geforce2MX be available??
3D sucks with my card. My frame rates suck so hard it hurts. Next to things associated with school, Playing games is the #1 thing I do with my PC, and really it most likely is THE #1 thing. Based on certain views expressed here in the thread, perhaps a voodoo 3000 would not be so bad. Is there a big differance in performance between the PCI version and the AGP version? what is the hit? and really what about the Voodoo 5? Is there a big hit with the PCI version over the AGP?? My ATI card is AGP, so I guess I could have 2 cards and get a PCI card, but I would much rather just replace the one I have with a new AGp card, especially if there is a big differance. Also against the Voodoo3, I am not into spending $80 now than another $120 in a few months. I would rather just spend $200 now a get a better card because that is how much I would be spending anyway.
Now, I have also read and heard of many many problems that plauge Nvida and the cards, especailly the Geforce. Stability is important, and so the idea of having to constantly tweak and change the drivers and settings just to play my games is not my idea of the most fun. I do think 3dfx has a better reputation of stability based on facts.
But that still leaves me with my question unanswered. Which is best? Voodoo4? 5? Geforce MX? Ahfung and MGallik do you guys have links to back up the frame rates? I most will not go above 1024x768 very often becuase my monitor only supports up to 1280x1024. And if the image looks good enough, and the frame rates are high enough, why bother going any higher? That is enough for me I think.
So which one.... and when will the Voodoo4 and the Geforce2MX be available??
MahaviraKhan, what CPU are you using? What quality RAM?
The V5 really likes faster CPU for higher resolutions ( and lower ones, for that matter). Provided your memory bandwidth is decent, it really likes the 800 to 866 Intel CPU range (with CAS2 RAM). I'm at 891 with CAS2-like setting on my RAM. It likes that better than 975 at CAS3.
GeForces, from what I've read, work a bit better with lower end CPUs. I've never used one personally.
As to the V3, my friend runs his games with a V3-2000 PCI and a V3-3000 AGP. He doesn't see much of a difference between the two (but you'll probably want to OC the 2000). He DID notice a huge difference in texturing going from a V3 to a V5 in Soldier of Fortune. That may be important to you. 16bit rendering (22bit effective) on the V5, mated to the new 2048x2048 textures, is very nice indeed.
Comes down to the games you play, whether or not FSAA matters to you, what kind of machine you have right now, and how much you have to spend.
The V5 really likes faster CPU for higher resolutions ( and lower ones, for that matter). Provided your memory bandwidth is decent, it really likes the 800 to 866 Intel CPU range (with CAS2 RAM). I'm at 891 with CAS2-like setting on my RAM. It likes that better than 975 at CAS3.
GeForces, from what I've read, work a bit better with lower end CPUs. I've never used one personally.
As to the V3, my friend runs his games with a V3-2000 PCI and a V3-3000 AGP. He doesn't see much of a difference between the two (but you'll probably want to OC the 2000). He DID notice a huge difference in texturing going from a V3 to a V5 in Soldier of Fortune. That may be important to you. 16bit rendering (22bit effective) on the V5, mated to the new 2048x2048 textures, is very nice indeed.
Comes down to the games you play, whether or not FSAA matters to you, what kind of machine you have right now, and how much you have to spend.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter