Voodoo5 ain't cutting it..what's a fella to do?

Draven

Member
Jan 15, 2000
102
0
0
I recently bought a V5 for a pretty good price, and I thought it would work out okay. I loved my V3 and wanted to stick with 3dfx, but we all know how that worked out. However I have been pretty disappointed in the card. I know that the V5 works better on faster computers, however upgrading the processor isn't in my budget.

So I think I am going to take it back and get another card. I have read a ton of threads on which cards are better, but I am having a hard time deciding which card would work best on my system. I play a lot of FPS and RTS, and I would like to be able to play some of the newer games (No One Lives Forever, Giants, Sacrifice and Alice) with a solid framerate. I am averaging 50 fps on UT with the V5. That's with some tweaking and the latest drivers. I would like to average 60 or higher.

So which card will I be happier with? Deciding between Radeon and GeForce, and I have to keep it in the $150-200 range. Also, this is going back to a B&M, so I need to be able to get it there rather than online.

With my system and price limitations, are my expectations unreasonable? I am running W2K with a dual boot to 98SE. I got a much more stable framerate in W2K, but it seems to me that the card should be faster. Is there a better card for my rig, or do I just need to spend some time messing with the V5 more than I already have?

 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,998
126
Your Celeron 700 is not that bad a processor. Specifically, what problems are you having and in what way are you disappointed? What games/settings/drivers are you using?
 

DaveB3D

Senior member
Sep 21, 2000
927
0
0
Being that you are CPU limited, upgrading isn't going to help you at all. Stick with what you've got.
 

Jethro Bodine

Member
Nov 28, 1999
182
0
0
Sheesh Dave- the company is gone and you're STILL selling V5s?!

If you're V5 isn't cutting it in FPS games, take your $150-$200 and by a GeForce2 card, which will be a LOT faster with your Celeron 700.

I have had both the Radeon 64 and the GeForce2 64 on my PIII-600, and can tell you if speed is your primary concern, go GeForce.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
I've had a devil of a time getting my V5 5500 to get decent framerates in UT! I'm not about to giveup on it though! You've got a better system than 99% of the Members here. The V5 5500 with the correct settings doesn't take a back seat to ANY video card out. I'm keeping mine...:cool:
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
50 fps in UT at what resolution/settings? And getting any other card will hurt your UT performance, as it runs most optimally on voodoo cards. Even a V3 beats a GF2 in UT.
 

BW

Banned
Nov 28, 1999
254
0
0
So what if the company is gone. even if there are no more drivers the latest ones will do fine. This is the most stable card out bar non. Before you call me a 3dfx freak i am using my radeon now since it is newer.Its a 32 meg ddr and isnt as fast as the 5500 and it doesnt play all my games without a hitch but i have fallen in love with the vibrant color and detail.I usually switch out cards about every two weeks but i may keep the radeon in this time. I will keep the 5500 as i may put it back in.If not i will mount it on the wall as the last kickass card that 3dfx ever made.
 

Draven

Member
Jan 15, 2000
102
0
0
Well, I actually went back to the default settings, since they seemed to look the best. I usually run it in 600x800 or 1024x768. If you all think I should be getting better performance, I would save the hassle of returning it if someone could point me to a good tweak site. I have checked out a few, but my success hasn't been that great...I will post my settings/framerates after some tweakage if someone would help me out. Thanks in advance

 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
I think UT performs best with a voodoo 3, strange. Either the Radeon or the GF2 won't be that much faster than your current setup.
 
Dec 28, 2000
195
0
0
K listin EVERYONE NiVida is the way to go with Vid Cards so listin
pick a Elsa Geforce 2 coz it's the beast one out there
3dfx = Higher Picture Quality But Lower FPS
got with Nivida *Don't know which card Exactly
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Well, the Radeon is extremely awesome on UT in D3D. My friends with GF2 ultras get all pissed whenever they see a game for the first on my card... the image is that much better to me and them. Sustained framerate is the concern, not average or peak framerate. The GF2's are definitely faster cards in terms of peak and and even average framerates... but a V5, Radeon 64MB DDR (or even a 32MB DDR), and a GF2 32/64 MB DDR are a lot closer on sustained (minimum instantaneous) framerate. The V5 has the best image quality IMO, followed by Radeon, with the GF2's trailing bad.

Out of my three friends that own(ed) GF2 ultras, one put his "old" V5 back in and just sold his ultra, and one has a Radeon 64 on the way. My third friend is a nVIDIA diehard (can't really fault him for it) but even he is upset with the image quality of his card.

Also, despite propaganda, GF2's have problems with some games and chipsets. From what I have heard, V5's seem to have the fewest problems.

But also take into consideration Radeon DVD playback...very nice!
 

Jethro Bodine

Member
Nov 28, 1999
182
0
0
BW-
I have never seen a review which shows a 32MB Radeon DDR to be slower than a V5, and if someone wants to make me waste 15 minutes, I'll gladly post links to 5-6 articles that show the Radeon faster than a V5 at 10X7X32>. (on several games, UT included)

"even if there are no more drivers the latest ones will do fine."
This is just nuts, IMHO. As more games come out with DX8/other features that weren't around when 3dfx made the last driver revision, don't you think there is a possibility for problems?

Draven: I was playing UT last night on my Radeon 64 at 10X7X32, all details maxed, 60-70fps on a PIII-600 Katmai. My cpu is 100MHz slower than yours. (although my fsb speed may be higher)
Anyway, I stand by my original post:
A GTS will run most fps games considerably faster than a V5. (at least not taking into account registry hacks/tweaks that degrade the V5s image quality)
Also, the V5 has no DX8 features.
Also, the V5 has no support or drivers.

If I owned a V5 now, I'd be trying to sell it asap, in the months to come they are headed for Viper2 land. ($39.99 after rebate)

 

RobsTV

Platinum Member
Feb 11, 2000
2,520
0
0
Man you gotta have some pretty big boots in this thread, as it is getting deep.
UT best with 3dfx followed by Radeon, and trailing badly is nVidia???
That my friends is a total load of bull, and proves beyond a doubt that the card has never been observed in UT.

It is a known fact that the absolute best visuals and speed in UT, is obtained with a GeForce2 GTS card running in OpenGL, with the OpenGL patch for enhanced textures. This allows you to use the extra 400megs of compressed textures that come on the second UT CD, something that 3dfx cards can not do.

Switching from a V3 3000 to a GTS card and playing UT on both, the GTS card makes the V3 seem like it was only a S3 virge card. The difference and improvements are THAT noticable.

For more info, or if you have doubts, just chcek out this link:
The way UT is supposed to look (sorry 3dfx owners)

As to drivers and compatability, the GeForce2 are much more stable and compatable than the V3 series ever was. This statement was made after more than 18 months of owning a V3, and 2 months owning a GTS card. No comparison, GTS wins that battle going away.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
I've seen a GeForce DDR running UT using OGL with S3TC, it looks much better than my voodoo 5 in D3D or GLIDE (may be a bit smoother?). Even the wooden grates and the floor look great.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< K listin EVERYONE NiVida is the way to go with Vid Cards so listin >>



Well I guess we were all told and quite eloquently I might add. He really has a way with words.
 

Taz4158

Banned
Oct 16, 2000
4,501
0
0


<< It is a known fact that the absolute best visuals and speed in UT, is obtained with a GeForce2 GTS card running in OpenGL, with the OpenGL patch for enhanced textures. T >>



Known fact eh? Methinks I rather disagree.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Draven-

&quot;I play a lot of FPS and RTS, and I would like to be able to play some of the newer games (No One Lives Forever, Giants, Sacrifice and Alice) with a solid framerate.&quot;

Giants- Supports hardware T&amp;L

Sacrifice- Supports hardware T&amp;L

Alice- Supports hardware T(no L though:))

NOLF- Plays silky smooth on my GF DDR with Athlon 550(every graphic detail cranked, 1024x768 32bit), should be comparable to your Celeron 700 in terms of power.

For the first three I have listed(the last three you listed) either a GF2 or Radeon should help you out a bit, how much is arguable until we get a benchmark for them. Giants also supports Dot3 bump mapping which the Radeon and GeForce2 have, the Voodoo5 doesn't.

&quot;I am averaging 50 fps on UT with the V5. That's with some tweaking and the latest drivers. I would like to average 60 or higher.&quot;

Not sure why you are quite that low with your rig, perhaps a Celery 700 is bit worse off then my 550 Athlon? No matter, I would still pick either the GF2 or Radeon over the V5 for UT. The link above that RobsTV posted shows how good UT looks on a Radeon or GeForce series board using the S3TC compressed textures, and while I'm pretty sure the particular article he linked to has Radeon benches(I didn't click on it, going by article ID number), the GeForce boards are actualy quite a bit quicker running OpenGL then D3D for UT particularly at higher resolutions.

Which one to get, I would say a Radeon 32MB DDR if you can get it in your price range. The GF2 is overall faster, and has better driver support, but the Radeon looks very good out of the box(GF2 should be tweaked a bit) and matches nearly all of the GF2's features while having a few of its' own. Also, I'm not sure how much luck you would have finding a GF2 in your price range in a B&amp;M store(though I honestly haven't looked).
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
I don't care which card you have, if it can run under OGL with S3TC enabled, it will look much better than D3D. Both the Radeon and the GeForce series support it.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
Hey Ben, you playing NOLF too? Mrs Oldfart left it under the tree for me this year. Cool game!! I have to say I'm less than impressed with the Lithtech engine though. Certainly doesn't compete with Q3, Unreal, or the new Serious Sam engine. Keep seeing that bald guy with the octagon shaped head ;). Gameplay is great though. Runs very well on the Radeon also. Speaking of Serious Sam, have you tried it out? Since you are so much into the technical side of cards and game engines and such, you should check it out. Its a really incredible engine.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Hey oldfart:) Haven't checked out SS yet except a real old version that was available earlier this year, how big is the dl?;)

Have you tweaked up NOLF yet? Gone into the advanced settings and maxed out all the details? I was very impressed, the engine itself isn't comparable to Quake3 or some of the games we are seeing now based on it(such as Alice), but I would have to give the overall edge in graphics to NOLF when directly compared to Quake3.

At first I was extremely underwhelmed with the gfx, after I noticed that you could crank the details much higher then the default high quality I must say I was impressed, particularly with the texture quality(UT Loki rivaling in many cases IMHO).

I saw your post in the other thread about what that stuff is in SS, but I haven't downloaded it yet(ISP has been even worse then normal latley, have a list of downloads to do next time I visit my broadban.. errr.. sister;)).
 

BW

Banned
Nov 28, 1999
254
0
0
Whatever man. Im telling you from my experience that my 5500 is faster for the most part than my 32 meg Radeon. Need for speed porch unleashed in 32 bit my 5500 is faster. The Radeon has a hell of a time with serious sam test2 it pauses throughout the game where as my 5500 doesnt.Rune my 5500 plays faster also.Thats with the 5500 maxed for eye candy in the drivers.
 

oldfart

Lifer
Dec 2, 1999
10,207
0
0
The SS DL is about 75 meg. Yeah, I have all the NOLF details cranked up to max. Its not the texture details, its...I dont know....lack of curves maybe? If they are going to have this bald guy, he should at least have a round head. Same with those La-Bomba cars. Octagon shaped tires. Maybe I'm just getting too picky. Still love the game. Took a little while getting used to things. Little more on the real side than the typical shooter game I play. I was on the 3rd level I think, where you have to shoot it out with a bunch of baddies. Got though that, got up to a rooftop area and saw another across the way just a bit. This would be a tiny jump in the Quake, UT, etc world. Obviously in the &quot;real&quot; NOLF world, it wasn't. *splat*. :eek: