If Voodoo 3s have only one pixel pipeline, how is it they perform so well compared to TNT2s?

[Howard]

I mean, if you check 3dfx's official specs for the V3 2K, it has a 125MHz clock and 125 megapixel fill rate.

???

 

[Rectalfier]

Its actually a 143mhz clock rate. Plus it supports multitexturing. It can do 286 megatexels per second.

 

[Rand]

The Voodoo3 2000 is clocked at 14/143 and can do dual texturning. It has one pixel pipeline, and can apply 2 textures per rendered pixel.

 

[oldfart]

By default, clock speeds are:

Voodoo 3 2k 143/143
Voodoo 3 3k 166/166
Voodoo 3 3.5k 183/183

 

[Howard]

Oh


Thanks!

 

[Noriaki]

Voodoo3 has a single dual texturing pipeline
TNT2 has two single texturing pipelines

Since almost all games now use at least 2 textures/pixel that works out to be roughtly equivilant.

Actually..I'm not sure if that's right...
They might both have a single dual texturing pipeline...

I can't remember exactly now...
Either way they are pretty close, and they have pretty similar clock speeds.

The TNT2 is 125/150 and the Ultra is 150/183, the V3 speeds were posted (that's core/mem btw)

 

[BFG10K]

If you check some old benchmarks you will find the TNT2 performing better than the V3 at higher resolutions. My friend's TNT2 beats my V3 2000 in Quake 2 @ 1024 x 768.

 

[Noriaki]

At higher res the faster RAM on the TNT2 gives it the edge.

It's got 150Mhz ram comapared to a 2000s 143.
Same for the Ultra having 183 over the 3000s 166.

The 3500 tends to edge out even the Ultra because of it's 183/183, but the 3500 was kind of expensive because of the crappy TV tuner they built in.

 

[pRick]

"At higher res the faster RAM on the TNT2 gives it the edge."

Not quite. The very fact is has MORE RAM is what makes it faster at higher resolutions. Voodoo3 packs more pixels/sec under the hood than the TNT2 outright. If the Voodoo3 had 32Mb of RAM, it would be substantially better than the slow TNT2.

 

[ForeverSilky]

Hell all I play are glide games so long live the V3 2000!

 

[Rigoletto]

Nobody mentioned that the TNT2 comes in different flavours- M64, Pro and Ultra. Which were you talking about? The Pro is still going in the budget regions. Maybe the ultra doesn't compete well against Geforce MX.

 

[BFG10K]

The 3500 tends to edge out even the Ultra because of it's 183/183, but the 3500 was kind of expensive because of the crappy TV tuner they built in.

Nope. Check out these benchmarks.

To quote the article:
As the effects pile on, the TNT2 starts to show its strength, and the Voodoo3 cards start stepping back in performance.

Not quite. The very fact is has MORE RAM is what makes it faster at higher resolutions. Voodoo3 packs more pixels/sec under the hood than the TNT2 outright. If the Voodoo3 had 32Mb of RAM, it would be substantially better than the slow TNT2.

My friend's TNT2 has 16 MB of RAM.

 

[oldfart]

I just recently upgraded my V3 3K to a Radeon 64. My V3 3K was the best value in a video card I ever had. It came with the 5.5ns ram and clocked at 183 MHz+ no problem. I paid $130 for it, got a $30 rebate, plus a free copy of UT. I figure the UT at the time was worth $40. So, the card cost me $60. I'm selling it to a buddy for $60. The card always worked great. Fast, stable, good drivers, great 2D and 3D image quality. Look at the FS/T board. Lots of "WTB" on V3 cards.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

BFG10K, I question the validity of Thresh's benches.

If you look at the benchmarks on the P2 450. The TNT2 goes up in framerates when going from 640x460 to 800x600.

 

[Rigoletto]

Can anyone tell me WTF oldfart is talking about?

 

[oldfart]

What would you like clarification on?

 

[xtreme2k]

well i had a V3/2000 and a CL TNT2ultra on a Celeron 366 at 567/103 before

i remmeber their speed with Q3

V3/2000 at 1024/16bit everything highest quality - ~32fps
CL TNT2ultra at the same setting - 47fps

'huge' difference there tho
but one might say one is a value V3 and the other is the Ultra of TNT2

so take this
v3/2000 has clock of 143MHz
v3/3500 has a clock of 183

is i actually scale my speed LINEARLY with that (this is the PERFECT situation and you will NEVER get this kind of perfect scale like this)
32 x 183 / 143 = 40.9fps

so a V3 3500 would have 40.9fps on the same setting
still substantially slower than a TNT2ultra at 150/183


for UT i forgot only have the demo hence cannot benchmark
i can tell you how i feel
at 1024/16bit
TNT2ultra with DirectX while V32000 with Glide
difference was neglectable

but when i try 1024/32bit with the TNT2ultra
i was really IMPRESSED by it
it was still within the neglectable speed range of a V3/2k and TNT2u at 16bit

now i got an Asus V7700 GTS/Pure
and i am so happy

 

[BFG10K]

If you look at the benchmarks on the P2 450. The TNT2 goes up in framerates when going from 640x460 to 800x600.

That was odd but I have seen similar examples of this with other cards due to driver glitches. The Rage MAXX had a big hole at 1152 x 864 and more recently the V5 had its second CPU disabled at 1600 x 1200 by the drivers.

But regarding the TNT2s being better than the V3s, I have seen similar V3/TNT2 benchmarks at Tom's. If you really want I can track them down for you.