poll: voodoo5 or gts-v
- Thread starter spanky
- Start date
I'd go with the GTS-V, simply cause you know it will be supported for a looong time should you decide to stick with it, while the V5 doesn't have any official drivers for anything after Win2K.
Granted, there are unofficial drivers made by enthusists out there, but you never know how well they work, or how long people will keep making them, getting my V3 to work under XP was a PITA for instance.
Granted, there are unofficial drivers made by enthusists out there, but you never know how well they work, or how long people will keep making them, getting my V3 to work under XP was a PITA for instance.
With a 1ghz CPU you really should be spending that little bit extra on a GF3TI200 or Rad8500/8500LE. Much faster, better in all respects and supports DX8 hw funcs, very useful to have. The GTS is fine, but spend the extra $2 and get a 64MB version! Also consider the TI and Rad7500 cards as alternatives. Although you won't get the full potential out of the GF3 or Rad8500 cards you can soak up the unused gfx card speed by enabling AA and Ani. I would strongly advise spending that little bit extra.
The GF2 will certainly have much better compatability and MUCH better drivers. It should be a fair bit faster too, esp in 32bit colour which was always a weak spot for Voodoo cards. I'd definitely use the GTS over a Voodoo5. But lets look at it a little more.AnAnd Athlon1.1ghz & gfx cards (voodoo4 4500 5500, GF2mx gts & radeon)
AnAnd Differnet CPUs & Voodoo4 4500
3Dmark2001SE using Athlon 1ghz (gfx card: total marks, games1-4 FPS high detail):
1024x768x32:
Voodoo5: 1900, 11, 10, 23, na
GF2 GTS: 4300, 25, 35, 36, na
Rad8500: 7200, 33, 74, 43, 44
1024x768x32xAA:
Voodoo5: 1400, 6, 9, 19, na
GF2 GTS: 2200, 18, 16, 23, na
Rad8500: 4500, 26, 45, 33, 22
The GTS is the clear choice, but you can see what you would gain from a $90 gfx card, worth thinking about as a future upgrade perhaps. The GF3TI200 would give slightly slower results than the Rad8500 but would be slightly faster at AA.Don't forget the Voodoo3's competed with the TNT cards, while the Voodoo5's competed with the original GF, you are talking years ago now. That's not to say they can't run the older stuff well, esp anything glide enhanced, but things move on.
voodoo 5 all the way. its a piece of history, image quality in both 2D and 3D is far superior, speed is comparable (3DMark is not a good indicator - 3DFX never had time to optimize their drivers for it - it doesn't matter anyway).
the 3D image quality is truly gorgeous on the V5, still right up there near the top of all cards currently available, plus 3DFX's FSAA is much better than what is implemented in the GTS based cards.
don't get a cookie cutter card like the GTS-V, live a little.
the 3D image quality is truly gorgeous on the V5, still right up there near the top of all cards currently available, plus 3DFX's FSAA is much better than what is implemented in the GTS based cards.
don't get a cookie cutter card like the GTS-V, live a little.
Ermmm. Not just 3Dmark. From the links: In Q3A the GTS is 33%, 43% and 50% faster in the resolutions compared to the Voodoo5. MDK2 is 47%, 66% and 50% faster. Unreal Tournament is 0%, 27% and 29% faster. As shown 3Dmark shows the GTS is 226% the speed of the Voodoo5, and even with AA enabled the GTS is still at 157%. Bear in mind the GF drivers have been refined and optimised further over the last 2 years while the Voodoo5 drivers rely heavily on 3rd party development. That doesn't bode well at all for future games nor OS's, let alone current ones. The link shows Windows 2000 drivers are up to 28% slower than the Win98 drivers! And don't even mention the poor and patchy OpenGL support on the Voodoo range of cards, the Glide alternative never really took off did it. Don't you just love it when people make unfounded and unreasonable suggestions just for the hell of it? I bet it would be different if it was their money and their PC! If Plester likes your old Voodoo5 that much, "voodoo 5 all the way. its a piece of history", see if he'll give you $50 for it! LOL Well I suppose when you factor in the superb image quality and apparently the speed and AA perf are great he should be offering you $100 or a straight swap for his cookie cutter Radeon8500LE card!Definately the GTS-V! I own both cards and the GTS-V is faster and has much more features! THe only thing the voodoo 5 has on the GTS-V is better AA, and on higher resolutions, AA is not required. Also, many games now require T&L, which the Voodoo 5 does not have.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
If you've been around these boards long enough you know my answer Voodoo5. Do NOT even look at 3dmark. You MIGHT be able to use 3dmark to compare changes within a single system, or maybe even to compare comparable systems, but it just doesn't work for comparing different configurations, 3dmark is notoriously anti-3dfx. The GTS is a little bit faster, sure, but dude, the IQ on the Voodoo5 is worlds better, and many GTS cards had problems with 2D. And FSAA....as far as quality goes, it is so much of a differnece, comparing the two should be illegal Q3 and 3DMark ALWAYS looked better for nvidia, because frankly they optimized their drivers for it. In most other games, the difference wasn't near as great, and in new games, both cards are gonna suck, so go with the V5 so you at least get the quality.
Voodoo5. Do NOT even look at 3dmark. You MIGHT be able to use 3dmark to compare changes within a single system, or maybe even to compare comparable systems, but it just doesn't work for comparing different configurations, 3dmark is notoriously anti-3dfx. The GTS is a little bit faster, sure, but dude, the IQ on the Voodoo5 is worlds better, and many GTS cards had problems with 2D. And FSAA....as far as quality goes, it is so much of a differnece, comparing the two should be illegal Q3 and 3DMark ALWAYS looked better for nvidia, because frankly they optimized their drivers for it. In most other games, the difference wasn't near as great, and in new games, both cards are gonna suck, so go with the V5 so you at least get the quality.LOL GTS is clearly better, if image quality is a concern then get a GF4MX or Rad7500 card, well worth the extra cash.
I can't believe there are still 3dfx fan boys still touting 3dfx over all logic. Sure '2D' image quality is better on V5, but as I say if you want half decent perf (lacking on the V5) and IQ then spend a little more. Sure V5's AA is better, but the V5 card is so much slower in all non-glide games that V5 is still slower than GTS even with AA enabled, and the perf defecit is not just in 3Dmark as I've already pointed out, besides how many games do you still play that use glide, let alone need it? The drivers for new games and OS's are AWEFUL for 3dfx cards, I can't believe you guys would seriously suggest the V5 as superior, even to the age old GTS. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, I just can't really understand what you base your arguments on. If you love the V5 that much, offer to buy the thing off him so he can buy a GF4MX or Rad7500!
I can't believe there are still 3dfx fan boys still touting 3dfx over all logic. Sure '2D' image quality is better on V5, but as I say if you want half decent perf (lacking on the V5) and IQ then spend a little more. Sure V5's AA is better, but the V5 card is so much slower in all non-glide games that V5 is still slower than GTS even with AA enabled, and the perf defecit is not just in 3Dmark as I've already pointed out, besides how many games do you still play that use glide, let alone need it? The drivers for new games and OS's are AWEFUL for 3dfx cards, I can't believe you guys would seriously suggest the V5 as superior, even to the age old GTS. Of course you are entitled to your opinions, I just can't really understand what you base your arguments on. If you love the V5 that much, offer to buy the thing off him so he can buy a GF4MX or Rad7500!
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
Silly boy. I'll not say something to the effect of '3dfx over anything', but in my opinion, the speed advantage of the GTS just wasn't enough to justify the other benifits that the V5 had. And you say the drivers are "AWEFUL"? Do you use them? I'm still usin the Voodoo5, I have absolutely no problems with the beta drivers. I may have gotten a little rusty in my arguement, if you want to get a better understanding of my reasons, do a search to this time a year and a half ago. You'll see when WingNutz, Robotech, Rand, and I(plus a few others I may be forgetting) tore the nvidia fanboys apart
not much imagination running in this thread. i have a GTS-V sitting in the garage, send me that V5 and the GTS-V is all yours.
- Jun 19, 2001
- 25,716
- 4
- 81
hey man.... quoting all economics professors around the globe "there is no such thing as a free lunch!"
anyway, the only game i play is Counter-Strike... and the voodoo5 already performs very nicely. i'm not sure exactly how much better the gts-v could be... there is only one way to find out i suppose. time to start ghosting LOL Respect Deeko and co, I'm glad you don't take things too seriously, nice to see. Don't go thinking I'm an nVidia fanboy, I look at all PC hw froma neutral standpoint. I just think the V5 wasn't all that great when released, esp considering its price. GTS along with all GF2 cards are notorious for poorer than average '2D' image quality, but I doubt spankyOO7 has a 19" monitor (or even a decent relatively new display) since he only has a budget of around $35 for gfx cards. I think the GTS would be better due to it being 125% - 226% the speed of the V5, even the V5's better AA can't redress the imbalance. I used a 3dfx Banshee recently when I sold my GF2 card at the launch of the GF4 as I awaited a GF4TI4200 release, during that time WinXP drivers were very poor, admittedly the Banshee performs far worse than the V5 though. My cousin also used a V3 and has ditched it when switching to WinXP due to poor drivers. Even with stable and efficient drivers the GTS would still be best IMHO, but the proof is in the pudding, depending upon what games are played with it the V5 is still capable of running reasonably well, lets face it the GTS technology is a bvit old now too. For anybody with only modest gaming interests there is little point aiming much higher. It is a close call between V5 and GTS, but I think it is clear the GTS is the better card. As for Rand, I've seen him give some quality posts, but I've also seen him spout out unfounded and bizarre comments and opinions too, some of which have quickly and easily been proven false. In any case, there is little to choose between GTS and V5, most people would be much better served with a GF3TI200, Rad8500LE/9000 for $90, or Rad7500, GF4MX for a little less. No offence intended! I just thought it was more probable the you had an older or smaller monitor due to your skimping on gfx cards, that's all. One thing I just noticed though, the GTS only has 32MB, that is unlikely to hurt you in the games you play, but 64MB is definitely much better. In all seriousness both a very close and have their pros and cons, try them both out and see what seems better for your uses. But that 1ghz Athlon really should have a GF3TI200 or Rad8500LE/9000 type card, but if your PC does what you need it to, there's no need to worry. A lot of big brand PCs stick GF4MX card with their £1000 2.0ghz+ monsters, and you wouldn't be far behind them in perf which ever card you use! In fact with a GF3 or Rad85/90 you'd easily beat them!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: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter