• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

v4 4500 Review

Voodoo 4 4500, 1-chip, 32MB, AGP and PCI, $179


3dfx is obviosly loosing it, who would buy a card for that much money when a year ago you could get same performance for same money and now you can get alot more performance for less money.

This product looks just so stupid that I´m speechless.
 
32 bit colour!!!!!!!!!!! WHooooO!

Actually, I said this in another thread, but the only thing that makes the the V4 "better" than the v3 is it offers 32 bit colour.

And looking at the benchmarks, they're so SAD that I can see why 3DFX decided not to support 32 bit last year. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way to unlock 32 bits with the v3 using the v4 drivers and get the same results.

v3 for 75 or v4 for 150. Wow, tough call.
 


<< Voodoo 4 4500, 1-chip, 32MB, AGP and PCI, $179 >>


I've seen it as low as $139. MSRP is $149, not $179.

I wouldn't buy it but it is good for people with old computers or i810 mobos or something.
 
Actually, it performs much better than I expected. Look at high quality, that's what I would be playing at all the time no matter how slow the card(I ran 800x600 in high quality on a TNT), and it is only slightly slower than the MX. And it is faster in UT. And as I have said more times than I can count, who cares about 3dmark? Based on those benchmarks, I would actually get the V4 over the MX(I play more UT, and I never play in low quality in any game). If they threw in more benchmarks, then I probably would choose MX. But based on these, I'm plesently surprised by the V4.
 
Didnt you see it, the MX and the 4500 were about the same in UT, and you said it yourself that your age old TNT performs a little worse than the MX. Why get this peace of shit??
 
&quot;the G2 MX mops the floor with it&quot;

3 fps is &quot;mops the floor&quot;???
Like you'd even notice 3fps while playing.

I'm not so sure why they even bother showing Low Quality/Fastest benchmarks. I mean, does anybody actually play their games at this detail level? If so, why bother buying a new video card?

There's a significant image quality difference between a V3 and 3dfx's newest cards. 32bit color and larger textures, for examples. Not to mention the option of FSAA.
 
what are you talking about come expensive. They lowered the msrp to $150 , and OEM would be like $120, which isn't expensive at all.
 
You aren't actually trying to rationalize Hardware, are you? Might as well just go beat your head against the wall. It'd be just as productive. 😉
 
&quot;&quot;the G2 MX mops the floor with it&quot;

3 fps is &quot;mops the floor&quot;???
Like you'd even notice 3fps while playing.&quot;

Ok looking at the first graph in the review:

Q3 Fastest:
G2 MX - 108.2 FPS
V4 4.5k - 86.8 FPS
Difference 21.4 FPS

Anyone who really plays Q3, plays in Fastest or very close to it (in 800 or 1024). The v4 4.5k isn't going to close that gap at all in higher res, infact in higher res it probably has a wider gap (between itself and the MX).

Hans007
&quot;what are you talking about come expensive. They lowered the msrp to $150 , and OEM would be like $120, which isn't expensive at all.&quot;

Compared to a V3 3k which provides almost exactly the same performance, that's expensive.

Thorin
 
czar, you misinterpreted me. I meant that I played the TNT at high quality, but the rest of the sentence still referred to the V4, that's why it was in parenthesis. And I wouldn't be buying, that was a hypothetical situation. My card is better than both of them.

Thorin, every game I play, I play in high detail, including Q3. I would assume there are others like me, that favor higher detail settings over not really noticable frame rate increases. I have everything maxed at 1024x768. Why would I need to lower that, I get 66 fps, and that is plenty. And if you use default HQ/Fastest, does that not change the resolution? So, apparently the gap is closed at higher resolutions. This is assuming that because they didn't list the res, that they went with the defaults. They only said the res for UT.
 
I too play games with all details turned up. What's the point of getting a shiny new videocard, if you are just going to turn everything down?

Hell... If that's the case, why not just save a bunch of money and stick with a V3 or TNT2?
 
&quot;Thorin, every game I play, I play in high detail, including Q3. I would assume there are others like me, that favor higher detail settings over not really noticable frame rate increases. I have everything maxed at 1024x768.&quot;

I agree, I play Q3 that way as well, I'd rather play at ~60FPS with good graphics and maybe 1 or 2 less frags. However most die hard quake fans play at lower detail with maybe bumped up res.

Anyway my point (although I admit worded badly) was more that the V3 and V4 perform so close why would you bother paying the extra for the V4. And if you were going to pay for the V4 why not get the extra FPS of the G2 MX at the same price. (We can argue prices till we're blue in the face, but the fact is the article says their very close).

Thorin
 
You guys bring up a good point. I'm going to buy a Geforce 2 GTS 64MB Grand Slam Ultra$$ and turn everything down so I get 15000 fps!!

Anything over 30-40 to me is just a waste. Once I get over 30 in any game I look to see what details I'm missing like better graphics or sound quality.
 
Features. The V4 has alot that the V3 doesn't have. And in games that fully support DXTC or FXT1, the V4 will be much faster than the V3. Sure, the MX has most of the same features, but 3dfx's FSAA is still supreme.
 
i play pretty much only counterstrike. And well with 4x fsaa on at 800x600 sure the FPS isn't great but its well above 40 and looks great. That is what gaming is about. The best gaming experience. Because i know that counterstrike wouldn't be any better at 80fps with no textures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top