Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Comparison Of Voodoo3 With Actual 3D-Cards - Quake2 Crusher

Preview of 3Dfx Voodoo3
By

The specs of Voodoo3 can already tell what results we should expect. Rage128 and RIVA TNT will not have a chance against any of the Voodoo3 boards, because none of the two has got the fill rate to stand up against them. Voodoo2 SLI however has got a fill rate of 366 MTexels/s, although only 180 MPixel/s. Games that use multi-texturing should run just as fine on Voodoo2 SLI as on Voodoo3 3500. Let's see what the results show.

Quake2 Crusher Frame Rate [fps]

Intel Pentium III 500

Intel Celeron 400

AMD K6-3 450

AMD K6-2 400

3Dfx Voodoo3 3500

46.4

38.9

40.2

35.7

3Dfx Voodoo3 3000

43.4

37.6

39.4

35.1

3Dfx Voodoo3 2000

39.0

34.3

36.0

32.6

3Dfx Voodoo2 SLI

43.5

38.2

42.3

38.2

NVIDIA RIVA TNT

30.9

28.7

25.3

20

ATI Rage 128

32.6

26.2

22.7

18.5

This test shows some really nice results, doesn't it? First of all, Voodoo2 SLI is indeed pretty damn close to Voodoo3, but not quite as close to Voodoo3 3500. The systems powered by an AMD-CPU however score better with Voodoo2 SLI than with Voodoo3, which I consider as very interesting. You can also see very nicely that all the 3Dfx cards have a really good 3DNow!-support, which is why you find the graph going up again at the stage of the K6-3. ATI and NVIDIA suck at 3DNow!-support, which you can see by the steadily falling graph. It should be said crystal clear, owners of AMD-CPUs should stay away from any graphics card that is not from 3Dfx until the other 3D-chip makers learned their lesson properly.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

There are 0 comments.
This thread is closed for comments