Voodoo 4500 PCI vs. AGP

[the_querist]

I have an older PII system (Micron Millennia XKU) that has an AGP port (from Microns website - the AL440LX has an integrated Accelerated Graphics Port (A.G.P.) controller (Intel 82443LX PCI/A.G.P. controller).). I am upgrading from a Diamond Viper V330 4MB S3 (Nvidia - Riva 128) to a Voodoo 4500 PCI. What I want to know is if I should go back and exchange my Voodoo 4500 PCI for a Voodoo 4500 AGP. Would the 4500 AGP be compatible with the older AGP version on my motherboard or should I just stick with the 4500 PCI?

 

[Dark4ng3l]

The agp is 1-2 % faster

 

[Wag]

Anyone know how the GeForce MX boards do on an LX machine? Seriously, you're probably going to need to upgrade your motherboard anyways, but the Geforce MX boards are much better on low end machines than the V4 4500 boards. T&L makes all the difference.

 

[Wingznut]

"T&L makes all the difference"

For what, like three games? Oh yeah, and one benchmark.

 

[Wag]

Why is it whenever someone tries to help on videocards it degrades into a flamewar?

I don't see you offering any suggestions.

If you can think of a better cash/performer than the Geforce MX on a lower end machine then I'm sure he'd be happy to hear it.

 

[BFG10K]

You are wasting your time with Voodoos on a low-end system. 3dfx products don't have the ability to offload work from the CPU as the GPU boards (GF based or Radeon) can.

Take a look at these benchmarks. You are not going to find a better solution than the GF2 MX.

 

[Wingznut]

Well, the_querist wasn't inquiring about the MX.... now was he?

 

[vanderStoep]

Yes the new AGP card should be compatible with an old AGP slot. Although you won`t see much benefit between AGP and PCI as normal due to only using AGP 1. And AGP vs PCI is not really relevant for voodoo cards as they do not use the enifits of AGP as much as other cards. If you buy an PCI version, you can always in the future transfer it to an newer system as a second video card for playing older glide games.
However motherboards with LX chipsets have a lot off issues with a lot of graphics cards. You should check if there are for your mobo.
Next to your question,
You should also consider voodoo 3 cards as they are alot cheaper and offer not that much less performance on your system. Also GeForce mx is an option which is cheaper and in the few games with T&L performs much better, but as your p2 is already aging, you`ll probably will not play that many of the newest games, in which case a glide (VooDoo)card is ideal.

 

[hans007]

oh god not the nvidia vs 3dfx thing for the 8000th time. If you have an lx board, you probably have a relatively low end chip. I'd get the v4 4500 agp if it were a free exhange. A few LX boards couldn't handle the agp amperage and voltage requirements of higher end cards, but the micron probably can. Should be no problem. As for this whole MX vs v4 crap , can you guys just shut you asses already, cant we come up with anything else to talk about.

 

[BFG10K]

Well, the_querist wasn't inquiring about the MX.... now was he?

True, he wasn't. In that case my answer is to simply get the cheaper board of the two, but I would probably get the AGP one just for convenience. In reality though, if I really needed a Voodoo I would get a Voodoo 3.

 

[Wingznut]

Sorry hans, but I can't pass this one up.

"3dfx products don't have the ability to offload work from the CPU as the GPU boards (GF based or Radeon) can"

If that's true, then why do I get 54.5 fps in Q3 (at 1280x768x32 HQ), which is 4% (2 fps) slower than a GTS, and 6% faster than the Radeon.

[Please keep in mind that the GTS and Radeon numbers mentioned above, are based on AnandTech's scores, in which they used a cpu that was 25% faster than mine... For whatever that's worth.]

 

[BFG10K]

Double post and I didn't even notice until today! Crap!

 

[BFG10K]

If that's true, then why do I get 54.5 fps in Q3 (at 1280x768x32 HQ), which is 4% (2 fps) slower than a GTS, and 6% faster than the Radeon.

(1) There is no evidence of these kinds of scores anywhere. All of the hardware sites reviewing the drivers found only small gains at higher resolutions.

(2) Even if this was true, high resolutions are limited by your video card, not CPU. It is in the CPU bound situations that the GPU helps out. What scores do you get at 640 x 480 on your Voodoo? No more than V3 right?

(3) If you had bothered reading these benchmarks you would see that I am correct. In CPU limited situations, the GPU boards (GFs and Radeon) are at the top of the pack while the Voodoos are at the bottom.

This clearly shows that there is something aiding the CPU because ordinarily a video card upgrade won't increase your fps if you are CPU limited.

Yet another example where owning the video card in question doesn't quite make you the expert you claim to be.

 

[Wingznut]

"What scores do you get at 640 x 480 on your Voodoo?"

I don't know, nor do I care. I don't play at 640x480, nor do I know anyone who does.

This is a perfect example of useless benchmarking. What the fps is at 640x480 is completely irrelevant to someone who never applies it.

I feel the same way about 3dMark, Winbench, Sandra, etc... since aren't real applications.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't know, nor do I care. I don't play at 640x480, nor do I know anyone who does.

Firstly, your false statement has been proven wrong.

Secondly, the 640 * 480 case was just thrown in to explain CPU limitations. Somebody who has a Celeron 333 will likely be CPU limited at even 1280 x 1024. In this case they will get a nice perfomance boost.

Sure a P3 900 won't be CPU limted at high resolutions, but that doesn't matter. What it shows is that GPU based boards are better value for money than the Voodoos because they help out CPU limited systems. This feature is another notch in nVidia's and ATI's belts and yet another notch that 3dfx can't claim.