Maybe it's a stupid question, but I don't know.. Is a Voodoo3 3000 better than a TNT2 M64? If it is, what does a Voodoo3 3000 compare to in terms of nVidia cards?
Is a Voodoo3 3000 better than a TNT2 M64?
- Thread starter PlunX
- Start date
the TNT2 ultra is exceptional. A very good card if you can find it for the right price.
I wouldnt pay more than 60 dollars for that card though. Compared to a 100 dollar geforce2 MX it would get killed.
The V3 3000 has specific games that play as good as a high-end card, like Unreal Tournament. you would feel like you wasted your money if you are trying to compare the V3 to any other card under unreals engine.
The TNT2 Ultra is yesterdays technology, by that I mean its 1 year old. hehe
I wouldnt pay more than 60 dollars for that card though. Compared to a 100 dollar geforce2 MX it would get killed.
The V3 3000 has specific games that play as good as a high-end card, like Unreal Tournament. you would feel like you wasted your money if you are trying to compare the V3 to any other card under unreals engine.
The TNT2 Ultra is yesterdays technology, by that I mean its 1 year old. hehe
The games that I play most are Unreal Tournament, Quake 3, and Half-life.. The Voodoo3 3000 would be considerable for all of those games?
For UT and Half live the voodoo 3 is excellent, for q3 and future games the gf mx is more suited.
A MX would be better for halflife, but the V3 will crush any nVidia card in UT as long as you dont go to really high resolutions where a card such as the GTS will win simply cause of fillrate/bandwidth limitations.
Voodoo 3 is also better for Q3 than most people think. I had one, and it played UT, HL and Q3 all just fine. Use WickedGL for HL and Q3.
I currently have an M64 and it sucks in almost all the games that I have. I'm looking for a good video card under $130. The only one I see is the Voodoo3 3000. That's why I asked about it.
also if you play ut(or other unreal engine games) the voodoo 3 3k is the fastest card you can get(at resolutions not filrate limited)
BFG, I beg to differ. I had a Voodoo 3 and the image quality did not "bite" at all. If you set it up properly to use 22 bit color, and the Wicked3d drivers, it looks quite good. You cant play at very high resolutions, but it is more than acceptable. I had mine set up 800 x 600 everything max detail, (I know, no 32 bit color) and I got about 78 fps in demo1 on a PIII 733. More than playable. I now have a Radeon 64, so believe me, I know what good image quality looks like. What you will lose on the Voodoo 3 are small details. The overall image quality is fine.
BFG, we all know you are a 3DFX hater. You are in here constantly bashing them any chance you get. PlunX, ignore his posts. They are completely biased and irrelevant.
To answer you question, instead of posting useless dribble, the V3 3000 is a much better card. It also has some of the best 2D in the industry. If you play Unreal Tourney or any other Unreal engined game, you will love this card. If you are going to get one, try for the 3000. It has a faster clock, faster RAMDAC, and a heatsink that is at least double the size of the 2000.
Good Luck
BFG, we all know you are a 3DFX hater. You are in here constantly bashing them any chance you get. PlunX, ignore his posts. They are completely biased and irrelevant.
To answer you question, instead of posting useless dribble, the V3 3000 is a much better card. It also has some of the best 2D in the industry. If you play Unreal Tourney or any other Unreal engined game, you will love this card. If you are going to get one, try for the 3000. It has a faster clock, faster RAMDAC, and a heatsink that is at least double the size of the 2000.
Good Luck
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,000
- 126
BFG, we all know you are a 3DFX hater. You are in here constantly bashing them any chance you get. PlunX, ignore his posts. They are completely biased and irrelevant.
I said the V3 was better than the M64 didn't I? Why are you telling him to ignore it? Do you disagree?
BFG, I beg to differ. I had a Voodoo 3 and the image quality did not "bite" at all.
It bites big time. The textures are all blurry and smeared and the banding within fog and in the sky is horrible.
I now have a Radeon 64, so believe me, I know what good image quality looks like.
I hope for my sake you just haven't looked hard enough. I am seriously considering getting a Radeon 32 instead of an MX and I'd hate to think the image quality on the Radeon blows despite so many praises it has received.
The TNT2 and GeForce look far better. But I wouldn't get an M64 because it is slow as hell in gaming.
I said the V3 was better than the M64 didn't I? Why are you telling him to ignore it? Do you disagree?
BFG, I beg to differ. I had a Voodoo 3 and the image quality did not "bite" at all.
It bites big time. The textures are all blurry and smeared and the banding within fog and in the sky is horrible.
I now have a Radeon 64, so believe me, I know what good image quality looks like.
I hope for my sake you just haven't looked hard enough. I am seriously considering getting a Radeon 32 instead of an MX and I'd hate to think the image quality on the Radeon blows despite so many praises it has received.
The TNT2 and GeForce look far better. But I wouldn't get an M64 because it is slow as hell in gaming.
well BFG, I'll have to agree here
the 3000 doesn't look nearly as good in Q3 as a TNT2
however, a 3000 can be had for very little $$$ now.
Homeboy says he has $130 tho, so an MX would suit his needs, methinks, unless he's into flight sims and/or glide games, in which case a 4500 may be better
the 3000 doesn't look nearly as good in Q3 as a TNT2
however, a 3000 can be had for very little $$$ now.
Homeboy says he has $130 tho, so an MX would suit his needs, methinks, unless he's into flight sims and/or glide games, in which case a 4500 may be better
What banding in the sky? I never saw that. The sky looked great. You must be thinking of the Geforce2 card using S3TC. That is the only card I've seen with sky texture banding. Smeared textures? Nope. Fog banding? Nope. Do you have a Voodoo 3? I'm curious as to where you are getting this info. If you do have one and see all these issues, you have it setup completly wrong. Of course the Radeon has much better visuals than the V3. I didn't say it was the same. What I'm saying is that a properly set up V3 (mine was) can have very good Q3 performance. I wish I still had it. I'd take some screenshots to prove it.
Getting back on topic, the V3 is a better card than an M64. However, with the recent wave of new lower priced cards such as the GF MX, Radeon 32, and V5 4500, you would have to get the V3 really cheap. If not, any of them would be a much better way to go.
Getting back on topic, the V3 is a better card than an M64. However, with the recent wave of new lower priced cards such as the GF MX, Radeon 32, and V5 4500, you would have to get the V3 really cheap. If not, any of them would be a much better way to go.
a v3k is more comparable to a NORMAL TNT2.
If your into UT based games (or glide) get a V4 4500. IF your into opengl and d3d get a Gf2 MX.
If your into UT based games (or glide) get a V4 4500. IF your into opengl and d3d get a Gf2 MX.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,000
- 126
hmm I dont see any banding in the fog or sky and the textures dont look smared to me
Have you ever seen Quake 3 on a normal video card? By normal I mean something that can support large textures and 32 bit colour. If you have and can't see a difference I suggest you get your eyes checked.
What banding in the sky? I never saw that. The sky looked great.
You have seen a Radeon running in 32 bit colour and you don't think the V3's image quality blows? Maybe you need your eyes check as well.
You must be thinking of the Geforce2 card using S3TC.
No way. Both of nVidia's boards had S3TC disabled. I made sure of that.
That is the only card I've seen with sky texture banding. Smeared textures? Nope. Fog banding? Nope.
Geez you don't have freakin' clue.
Do you have a Voodoo 3?
Do I have a Voodoo 3? LOL!
I'm curious as to where you are getting this info.
My monitor is giving me this information.
If you do have one and see all these issues, you have it setup completly wrong.
How have I got it set up wrong? I select 32 bit colour/textures: it doesn't go. I set the slider to 4/4: it's still blurry. Perhaps you need to "inform" me how to set up a card that only supports small 16 bit textures.
Of course the Radeon has much better visuals than the V3. I didn't say it was the same.
Whew! I'm glad. For a minute there I thought I was going crazy.
What I'm saying is that a properly set up V3 (mine was) can have very good Q3 performance. I wish I still had it. I'd take some screenshots to prove it.
Whoah there! We're talking about image quality now not perfomance.
Getting back on topic, the V3 is a better card than an M64.
I agree. What's the problem then?
Have you ever seen Quake 3 on a normal video card? By normal I mean something that can support large textures and 32 bit colour. If you have and can't see a difference I suggest you get your eyes checked.
What banding in the sky? I never saw that. The sky looked great.
You have seen a Radeon running in 32 bit colour and you don't think the V3's image quality blows? Maybe you need your eyes check as well.
You must be thinking of the Geforce2 card using S3TC.
No way. Both of nVidia's boards had S3TC disabled. I made sure of that.
That is the only card I've seen with sky texture banding. Smeared textures? Nope. Fog banding? Nope.
Geez you don't have freakin' clue.
Do you have a Voodoo 3?
Do I have a Voodoo 3? LOL!
I'm curious as to where you are getting this info.
My monitor is giving me this information.
If you do have one and see all these issues, you have it setup completly wrong.
How have I got it set up wrong? I select 32 bit colour/textures: it doesn't go. I set the slider to 4/4: it's still blurry. Perhaps you need to "inform" me how to set up a card that only supports small 16 bit textures.
Of course the Radeon has much better visuals than the V3. I didn't say it was the same.
Whew! I'm glad. For a minute there I thought I was going crazy.
What I'm saying is that a properly set up V3 (mine was) can have very good Q3 performance. I wish I still had it. I'd take some screenshots to prove it.
Whoah there! We're talking about image quality now not perfomance.
Getting back on topic, the V3 is a better card than an M64.
I agree. What's the problem then?
Running the WickedGL drivers in 22bit mode fixed the banding for me (back in my V3 days). IIRC, I got the banding to go away with the latest V3 drivers from 3DFX as well. I think people might be overly critical of the V3 image quality. Sure, the nVidia 32bit Geforce looks better but the V3 (in Q3), well, it's better than a thumb in the eye. It's a fine budget card, much better than a M64.
Erm, well.. After hearing a few of your replies, I decided to ask my parents for an extra ten bucks for a Prophet II MX. Took it home, loaded up the drivers, everything seemed fine. Started playing Unreal and the game completely froze (the music looped, however) after about five minutes. The only thing I could do is reset, so.. I did that and then tried Quake 3. Same exact thing. Since I got the card at Best Buy and it's practically down the street, I took it back and noticed some Radeon 32MB DDRs for $149 after a $50 rebate. Bought that, brang it home, same thing again.. Did this same thing in all games I tried about three minutes after I started playing them. Took the card out and put my old TNT2 M64 back in.. No problems at all, just worse performance (of course). What could be causing these problems? I have an MSI K7T Pro motherboard and a Duron 600MHz.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter