Those in the know...Voodoo 3 vs. GeForce2 MX

[Loflyby]

I currently have a Voodoo 3 3000 and really have no complaints. Recently I have noted that a GeForce2 MX can be had for around $100.

What I would like to know from those of you who have first hand experience with the two, is how they compare ?

My Voodoo 3 is satisfactory, but I don't want to shell out the coin if a new card isn't going to blow the Voodoo 3 away. Another thing that may swing my decision is the fact that soon, my Voodoo 3 will not be worth much for resale.

Please let me know your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks in advance for any help with this topic.

 

[greg]

I sit back to back with a guy who has a v3 3000 agp and my $99 mx does blow away his card. No question. Sell yours, the upgrade may cost you $40-50?

 

[TAsunder]

In an unrelated note, I just upgraded from the v3 3k to a radeon... if you are willing to spend the money on any 32 bit card I think you will be happy. It basically means you get better graphics at the same speed. You might not be in the same position I was though.. wherein you needed an extra video card for a machine you were assembling.

 

[RoboTECH]

well, before you upgrade, answer these questions:

1) What games do you play?

2) How long do you plan on keeping this card (if you get it)

3)What kind of monitor do you have (size and type)

Answer those questions, and then you'll get a much better answer that isn't clouded by personal bias.

 

[imajew]

The MX is way better than the Voodoo3. Fact, not opinion.

 

[han888]

u can not compare the mx with voodoo3 3000! compare it with voodoo3 4500 with mx! mx will more faster than voodoo3 3000

 

[techwanabe]

I too have a Voodoo 3 3000 (AGP) and just read a very positive review on the Hercules 3D Prophet II MX 32 mb AGP card based on the Geforce 2 MX. For $100-150 price range, it looks like an excellent value. Sure it is slower than the Geforce 2 GTS series but at less than half the cost! I am on a budget so this looks good.

Games I currently play are Icewind Dale and Baldurs Gate II, which are not 3D. However, those games have effects which "can" use 3D acceleration and those same effects put a heavy load on the CPU and cause a major slowdown in framerate when in action. For example, if you are in a battle where lots of spell effects are in use, the game becomes jerky and slow. I would like to smooth out the game play and wonder if going with ghe Geforce card would help here. Bioware claims that the version of openGL implimented on the Voodoo 3 is unsupported. If you turn on 3D acceleration in IWD or BG2, performance actually gets much worse as does the graphics! But the games was developed on computers with the Geforce card and people report the game runs smooth there. I also play 3D titles and plan on Neverwinter Nights and Pool of Radiance II which are 3D titles.

Are there any comparisons of the GeForce 2 MX with the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance and features?

Thanx

Pentium III 550E FCPGA @ 733mhz
MSI Master slocket adaptor
ASUS P3V4X motherboard
128 mb stick Micron PC133 memory
Western Digital 15gig 7200 rpm hard drive
Diamond Monster MX300 sound card
Afreey 50X CD Rom drive
Voodoo 3 3000 agp video card
Samsung 17" Syncmaster monitor
Windows 98
mostly latest drivers

 

[BFG10K]

The MX will demolish a Voodoo 3. My friend has a normal 16 MB TNT2 and it works much better than my Voodoo 3. The graphics look much better and he can run higher resolutions faster than I can.

So why am I telling you this? Because the MX is a much better video card than the TNT2.

So go for it. Upgrade already.

 

[pen^2]

voodoo3 is a nice card but it does looks somewhat worse than the tnt2/g400 in 3d. NO NO it aint about gamma or LOD bias, dont even try... i did and do have voodoo3 2k/3k, so i know what i am talkin about. it is a bit fuzzier and the color tone doesnt seem right. very intricate difference hard to describe verbally. gotta see it for yourself and how you like it ya know

 

[BFG10K]

NO NO it aint about gamma or LOD bias, dont even try...

The disturbing thing is that you have 3dfx lovers who will claim that the Voodoo 3 does not suffer from banding (16 bit colour only) and blurry textures (256 x 256 max). When I see comments like this, it really makes me wonder.

 

[wizz0bang]

Hi!

I am a happy Voodoo3 2000 PCI owner... I love this thing... but they are right... time to upgrade! I do notice color banding due to the 16-bit color depth... you would on ANY 16-bit card... The voodoo3 and my Celeron 333@375 kept me going until now... I beat Homeworld Cataclysm recently... and Quake3 is very playable at 1024x768 (and looks gorgeous at 30+fps with all the crap turned on). I noticed Star Trek Klingon Academy choked my system with more than two ships in combat, but that's likely my CPU. Diablo II played flawlessly.

I can attest that a TNT2 is indeed better than a VooDoo3... my cousin has one on his PII400. It smokes my Voodoo on every D3D game. I bought the Voodoo3 in June 99 for 3dFX support... I got it for $90 back then and have never regretted it. But now-a-days 3dfx support really isn't an issue. Get a cheap Gforce 2mx or a Radeon... you will be happy!

I myself am planning to upgrade to a 700+ Duron and an ATI Radeon AIW. I figure I'll be doubleing my system accross the board... CPU and video.

P.S. I run a 19" monitor (for which I paid $800 back in the day) and am very pickey about video quality. The Voodoo3 has the best output of any card I've owned; the only better 2d image quality I've seen is on the newer Matrox cards. I hope the new Radeon will be at least as good as the VooDoo3 in that respect My subjective opinion of Nvidia in this regard is very low... but I have never seen a Gforce2mx in action... only Geforce and Geforce2 (as well as the various Rivas I've owned)