data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f9f92/f9f92657d2d262a5e54b0145972e5ca2e1c9d026" alt=""
Original Link: https://www.anandtech.com/show/272
Sit there for a minute, and think about some of the greatest feelings in the world. Feelings of accomplishment, feelings of happiness, and you can't forget about feelings of satisfaction. There's nothing like kicking back to watch a movie you've heard everyone talking about and having a ball watching it, hanging on to each and every line and every action sequence as if there was no tomorrow. | |
When dealing with movies, you have the type that are hyped beyond belief because they are excellent movies, and those that are hyped beyond belief because the marketing team behind the movie has the money and the gall to push a horrible movie. Unfortunately this practice is not limited to the movie industry, take away the big screen and film projector and replace it with a monitor and a video card, and what do you get? None other than that beloved computer hardware industry of ours, even more specifically, the video market. |
We've all felt the pains of the fast paced computer hardware industry, with new generations of CPUs coming out around every 12 months, it's difficult to keep up with, and to budget, a PC hardware enthusiast as a full time or even a part time hobby. It seems like the technology never stays the same long enough for any one person to stay on top for a reasonable amount of time, and if you're just using the hardware, imagine what it must be like reviewing all of the hardware ;) In any case, if you all thought that the CPU industry moved quickly, you're about to meet something a little more fast paced, an industry dominated by energy filled game-a-holics that can't help but drool over the latest screen shots of the next generation in PC games, of course, we're talking about none other than that same video chipset market mentioned earlier. With new product releases making their way onto the shelves from video card and video chipset manufacturers every 6 to 9 months, as opposed to the 12 to 15 months for most CPU manufacturers, it is even more difficult keeping up with the video industry. While the exact causes of the rate of change in the video industry are more complex than "gamers want faster 'puters" the bottom line is that the market evolves at a much more fast paced rate than any other in the computer hardware industry.
Because of this incredible rate of evolution, manufacturers often have to rush with the production and delivery of a product in order to make sure that they aren't left with a huge surplus of chips no one wants, as was the case with the old 8MB Voodoo2 boards that no one cared for. A considerable amount of market research, sales predictions, and demand calculation goes into every video card/chipset release that graces the eyes of the users that drive the industry. Because of this wonderful set of market analysis, video chipset manufacturers know exactly when to release what they have planned, and all it takes is a breakthrough product to throw the entire system off track.
This was the case with 3dfx's original Voodoo graphics accelerator, as it took the definition of 3D acceleration to a new level, taking the throne away from the previous holder, Rendition, a name now known to a very small population. The Voodoo dominated the market for close to a full year before competing manufacturers such as nVidia started releasing competitive products that came close to matching it in terms of performance. The reign of the original Voodoo prompted the hype surrounding the release of the 3dfx Voodoo2, unfortunately the release was not kept as dramatic as its predecessor since it took a couple of months for nVidia to pump out a strong competitor, the TNT. Then came, what many will call, an overclocked Voodoo2, the 3dfx Banshee which took the power of a Voodoo2 and added 2D support as well as AGP interface compatibility. The public seemed increasingly disappointed with 3dfx's releases after the original Voodoo, primarily because an owner of a Voodoo was able to hang on to the card for a considerably longer time and still have a high-end competitive system at that time, than a Voodoo2 or Banshee owner could at the time of the release of those two products. 3dfx can't take all of the blame for the highly competitive market they participate in; they just have to understand that the market will complain unless they repeat that one great success over again. There isn't a person out there that wouldn't mind having a 3D accelerator that would remain at the head of the pack for the next year, instead of finding him/herself wanting an upgrade after about 6 months.
As any good company would, 3dfx understands that you can't please the entire industry, everyone is going to have their favorites, however 3dfx is a company that aims to please as much as they can, and their latest attempt at doing so comes in a multi-flavored 2D/3D accelerator solution creatively dubbed, the 3dfx Voodoo3. History has already told us that the Voodoo3 won't place a great deal of distance between itself and the competition, however whether or not 3dfx's latest concoction is right for you depends entirely on the type of user you are and your interests as a gamer. How do we find out? Strap yourselves in, AnandTech is on another video card roller coaster ride, 3dfx is back with the third installment in the Voodoo trilogy, but unlike George Lucas' award winning creation, this sequel isn't something to get your hopes too high for.
The Changing Face of 3dfx
It seems like the entire 3D gaming industry grew up with 3dfx, eventually reaching a point where the term 3dfx almost became household when it came to software requirements. Ever since they set foot in the industry, 3dfx has been a video chipset supplier to third party video card manufacturers, 3dfx had the technology to create the chips, however as a small company they didn't have the power to go out and make their own boards. With the extreme success of the original Voodoo and the Voodoo2, it was time 3dfx did a little expanding. | ![]() |
The first thing 3dfx decided to go after was a company that would be the sole manufacturer of video cards based on 3dfx chipsets, and after a bit of internal debating, 3dfx's acquisition of graphics card manufacturer, STB, was made public. This of course meant that no other video card manufacturers would be able to produce 3dfx based products, however from 3dfx's point of view, they want to shift into high gear and really make a profit off of their "household" technology. By acquiring STB, they make the 3dfx-dependent market even more dependent upon themselves, by only allowing one manufacturer to produce the boards based on their chipsets. This is good for 3dfx in terms of profit (provided that their chipsets perform and sell as well as they have in the past), unfortunately it can only mean bad news for the consumer, as this makes the 3dfx/STB monster the only provider of 3dfx boards, illustrating a lack of competition that was once present in that particular market; and as you all should probably know by now, a lack of competition is never a good thing for the consumer.
The STB acquisition came at a surprise to quite a large percentage of 3dfx followers, however what 3dfx was about to unveil would probably outweigh the merger in the long run. Imagine this for a moment, you have no knowledge about computer hardware at all, much less any clue as to what 3D accelerator to buy, all you know is that you want to play games, and some kid that looked like he knew what he was talking about suggested that you buy one. If you're walking down the isles of your local Best Buy or CompUSA or where ever you happen to shop for computer goodies and you see the standard 3D accelerator box sitting on a shelf, with every other box looking somewhat alike, you're going to be a bit confused, right? If you have no idea what the techno-babble listed on the front and on the back of the boxes mean then your purchasing decision isn't going to be made any easier if a sales clerk begins to read you the specs right off the box when you ask for help. What if, hypothetically speaking, you were to come across a box that truly stood out? One that failed to conform to the style of a normal computer peripheral's box and took a more unique, and definitely more "household" approach to its presentation. If you were in that position, and saw an item that looked more like something you'd feel comfortable buying rather than something you'd be hiding beneath your arm in the checkout line, you'd most likely pick the former. This very scenario is what 3dfx was worried about, that they would be losing out on the retail end because of the fact that every single video card out there boasts the same old features and the same skewed performance graphs on their boxes. Their solution? Approach the sales of their cards in a manner never experimented with before. 3dfx launched the largest video card ad campaign ever in history, ranging from TV commercials on MTV, Comedy Central, and during the NCAA Basketball Tournament, to a new image for the company. 3dfx hired the artists that designed the album covers for musician, Marilyn Manson, in order to design a brand new look for the 3dfx boxes, setting them apart from the trend the rest of the industry follows. The company also decided to coin a new logo, so the days of the old green 3Dfx emblem are gone and have been replaced with the new age 3dfx mark.
The 3dfx chips themselves will still be manufactured by 3dfx, however the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) they are placed on will come straight from STB's manufacturing plants, and therefore look amazingly similar to STB products of the past.
Improving on Weaknesses: The Voodoo3
If anything, 3dfx had a tremendous influence on the motherboard industry with the release of the Voodoo2 last year. Never before have so many motherboards been removed from the view of potential buyers in order to support a single peripheral. The Voodoo2's ability to run in Scan Line Interleave (SLI) mode, where two cards can be connected together in order to make use of both of them for a large improvement in processing power, brought to attention the need for more PCI slots on motherboards. Furthermore, the fact that both the original Voodoo and the Voodoo2 (including the Voodoo2 SLI) were 3D-only add-on cards (an additional video card had to be purchased for 2D support) meant that a total of 3 expansion slots needed to be occupied by graphics cards in order for you to receive the best 3D performance possible. To most users, this was absurd, however there was still a percentage of the gaming population out there that would settle for no less than the best and quickly sacrificed 3 expansion slots for the fastest desktop gaming performance at the time. Unfortunately, with most motherboards having no more than 5 PCI slots, dual Voodoo2's in combination with an Ethernet card for network support, a SCSI card, and a PCI sound card hurriedly put to use all of the available expansion slots.
The 3dfx Banshee was supposed to fix this problem by integrating a high-speed 128-bit 2D core into the Banshee processor. The problem with the Banshee remained that it only carried over one texture processor from the Voodoo2, therefore not allowing for a performance improving technology known as single-pass multi-texturing to be taken advantage of. As taken from the AnandTech 3dfx Banshee Review, here's a quick explanation of the benefits of single-pass multi-texturing:
Presented in a single chip package, the Banshee contains essentially the same 3D texture processing capabilities as the Voodoo2 with one major disadvantage in order to decrease cost. The Banshee only has a single texture processor (known in the Voodoo2 community as a Texelfx processor) meaning it requires two passes to render multi-textured environments.
If you look at 3D rendering as painting a wall, a single coat of paint can easily be accomplished by virtually any brush, while that same brush will require two strokes to place two separate coats of paint on the wall (1 texture processor). Now imagine a brush capable of placing two coats of paint on a wall in a single pass (2 texture processors). By using the latter type of brush you are essentially doubling your productivity. In 3D gaming and rendering situations the application of such a technique is a bit more complex, yet it follows the same basic principle. If a wall in a game, such as Unreal, happens to have a texture placed on it, such as a brick texture, followed by another layer, say a reflection from a nearby fire, you basically have two textures on that one surface.
A Voodoo2, or any other chipset which has two separate texture processors can render that surface in a single pass (as in a single pass of a brush from the example above) while a Banshee, or any other chipset which only has a single texture processor, must make two passes (as in two strokes of a brush) to render the entire surface.
The Banshee boasts the same pixel processing unit which is found on all Voodoo2 boards, and therefore does retain some of the power of its bigger brother. In spite of its semi-crippled nature, the Banshee can surpass even the Voodoo2 in terms of performance when placed in the proper situation; at the same time, it can also be put to shame in a slightly different one. How can this be?
Well, in order to compensate for the lack of a second texture unit, 3Dfx clocked the Banshee at a full 100MHz clock, producing a fill rate of 100 million pixels per second compared to the Voodoo2's default fill rate of 90MP/s. In situations where only a single layered texture is used, the Banshee will outperform a Voodoo2, however in multi-textured situations, the Banshee will be shadowed by the raw power of the Voodoo2's second texture processor.
Where the Banshee was merely an overclocked Voodoo2 with one less texture processor and an integrated 128-bit 2D core, the Voodoo3 essentially is an overclocked Banshee with single-pass multi-texturing tossed back into the equation, making the Voodoo3 a Banshee/Voodoo2 hybrid that once again raises the bar of performance. There is no question to the argument that the Voodoo3 is faster than any previous 3dfx product to hit the market, including the Voodoo2 SLI. How much faster? That's another question…
AGP, Lies, and Videotape…
The Banshee was a high point in the history of 3dfx's card evolution, as it was the first 3dfx chipset to be designed for use in an AGP slot. Although Quantum3D manufactured AGP Voodoo2 cards, there wasn't another company out there that did the same. The Banshee however was more popular in its AGP form, and the reason is plain and simple, as well as a little unfortunate, the Banshee sole purpose for being available in an AGP interface was to jump on the AGP marketing bandwagon and increase sales. The same people that would walk into a store and feel intimidated by all of the video card boxes on the shelves, are most likely the same people that would opt for an AGP accelerator because that is the current buzz word and we absolutely must have an AGP accelerator to be up to date with our computer hardware. The Banshee is the only AGP video chipset out of its circle of competing "friends" such as the TNT and the G200, that doesn't take advantage of the AGP specification, making it even clearer to the public that the Banshee's sole purpose for being available in an AGP compliant part was to increase sales. Including the Voodoo3, 3dfx has never manufactured a video chipset that supports a technology known as AGP texturing, which is the ability to store/retrieve textures in system memory via the AGP bus. This technology allows for textures larger than the amount of available local graphics memory to be stored and retrieved without an incredible performance penalty, and it is this technology that 3dfx still doesn't support, even with their latest Voodoo3 parts. With more and more games using larger textures, the performance on 3dfx-based cards will begin to degrade, however currently, there are very few entertaining titles out there that will show an incredible performance improvement using AGP texturing due to texture sizes. Times will change, and you can expect the next wave of games to use much larger textures than we're already used to, so if you're buying for the future, you're definitely not going to be buying 3dfx anytime soon.
The Specs
- 143MHz - 183MHz 128-bit 2D/3D core
- 143 - 183 Megapixels per second
- 286 - 366 Megatexels per second peak fill rate
- 6 Million - 8 Million polygons per second peak processing power
- Resolution support up to 2046 x 1536
- PCI/AGP Support - No AGP Texturing Support
- 16-bit 3D Rendering Support - No 32-bit 3D Rendering Support
- 300MHz - 350MHz Integrated RAMDAC
- 16MB SDRAM
- Optional NTSC S-Video Out (3000/3500 Models Only)
- Optional LCDfx Digital Flat Panel Output (3500 Model Only)
- Direct3D/OpenGL/Glide API Support
- Per pixel perspective correct texture mapping
- 16/24-bit Z buffer
- Support for 8-bit palletized textures
Three Ways to Say: Single Card SLI
By looking at the specifications for the Voodoo3, you'll notice that there are quite a few areas where the specifications vary along a range. The reason for this is that 3dfx felt it best if they split up their Voodoo3 into three specific classes or models, each one adhering to the needs of a different type of user, the entry-level gamer, the average gamer, and the hard-core gaming enthusiast. Likewise, 3dfx's easy to understand model numbering system is supposed to be able to tell you which product is the right one for you, dividing the Voodoo3 into three classes, the 2000, 3000, and the 3500. Since basic psychological interpretation indicates that the human mind will interpret bigger as being better, the Voodoo3 2000 is targeted at the entry-level gamers, the 3000 at average gamers, and the Voodoo3 3500 at hard-core gaming enthusiasts. Before we get into discussing the features of each of the individual models, let's take a quick look back at the Voodoo2 for a moment.
As briefly mentioned earlier, Quantum3D was a manufacturer of Voodoo2 boards that somewhat broke the trend of making 3dfx boards. They were the only card manufacturer to produce something known as a single card SLI Voodoo2 board, which was essentially two Voodoo2 boards connected internally built upon a single card. The market was eagerly hoping that 3dfx would release a reference specification for a single-card SLI solution so that the majority of the market could purchase lower cost SLI solutions as Quantum3D's parts were quite pricey, unfortunately 3dfx never fulfilled those dreams leaving the single-card SLI fantasy nothing more than that, a fantasy for most. Let's take a look at the specifications for a single card SLI solution, or even a two card Voodoo2 SLI solution and compare it to the specs of the Voodoo3:
- 90MHz Clock Speed
- 180 Megapixels per second
- 360 Megatexels per second peak fill rate
- 3 Million polygons per second peak processing power
- Resolution support up to 1024 x 768
- PCI Support - No AGP Texturing Support
- 16-bit 3D Rendering Support - No 32-bit 3D Rendering Support
- 24MB EDO DRAM
- Optional NTSC S-Video Out
- Direct3D/OpenGL/Glide API Support
- Per pixel perspective correct texture mapping
- 16/24-bit Z buffer
- Support for 8-bit palletized textures
Now that should look quite familiar, take a look at the specifications for the Voodoo3 once again, now look at the Voodoo2 SLI specificationshmminteresting no? The Voodoo3 is quite similar to a single-card SLI solution with integrated 2D and support for the AGP interface. A tad disappointing, isn't it?
Judging 2D Quality
The most commonly overlooked feature of a video card is its 2D quality. While most users don't have 19" and 21" monitors, simply because of the incredible cost of such displays, there are some out there that are less than pleased with the 2D output of their video cards at high resolutions. As taken from the AnandTech Number Nine Revolution IV Review, here's a quick primer on the controversy behind 2D image quality:
Since its release, nVidia's TNT chipset has become a little more than a 2D/3D card for gamers. It seems as if the TNT is being crammed down everyone's throat, even if they have no intention of touching a frame of Quake 2 or even picking up the crowbar in Half-Life. Now, the TNT is a fairly affordable graphics solution considering it is a 2D/3D combo card, and its success is good news for nVidia. Being a successful chipset isn't a bad thing, where the TNT does get a bad reputation is when someone with a 21" monitor unravels the TNT's dark secret and tries to run their card at 1600 x 1200 x 32bpp at a high refresh rate under Windows. Look around the newsgroups, ask TNT owners, or try it for yourself, the TNT as well as many other 2D/3D combo cards don't provide the best 2D image quality when it comes to driving large monitors (i.e. 21") at high resolutions. The most common occurrence being that when viewing black text on a white background (or vise versa), the characters will begin to seem a bit fuzzy, and, especially after hours of staring at the screen, your eyes will begin to feel the wrath of a poorly constructed card.
Keep in mind that this scenario only really affects those with larger monitors running at resolutions above 1024 x 768 (most likely above 1280 x 1024). The assumption being made here by most manufacturers is that their customers won't use their products for professional purposes (i.e. intensive image editing, publishing, etc...) and as long as their 2D quality and performance is top notch at resolutions under 1280 x 1024 at refresh rates under 75Hz (which most users do tend to stay under, simply due to monitor sizes refresh rate limitations), they'll be perfectly fine. This holds true in a great percentage of the cases, which is why you'll hear people saying that the 2D image quality on the TNT or on the Savage3D is "top-notch" or "beautiful." However, when you happen to push your TNT card to the limits at 1600 x 1200, or when you give the Savage3D a run for its money at the same resolution, and you see some "fuzzy" text, it's quite difficult to believe that just about every single TNT/Savage3D owner out there could be wrong in saying that the 2D image quality is astounding...but in your case, they are.
The reason behind this is simple, in order to cut costs, the amount of filters placed between the analog VGA output on your video card and the RAMDAC are cut down to the bare minimum. This sacrifice is made simply because of the assumption made above. The RAMDAC on a video card is the device that converts the digital signal from the local graphics memory (RAM) and converts it into an analog signal for the monitor using a Digital Analog Converter (DAC) since most displays are in fact analog devices, with the exception of a relative few digital LCD displays (not all LCD displays are digital, in fact, most are analog as well). The speed of the RAMDAC is a defining factor in how crisp the 2D quality of your video card is.
Since most of these cards will be used for 3D games, and since there isn't a next-generation 2D/3D combo card out there capable of running any 3D game at 1600 x 1200 in a high performing fashion, most manufacturers figure that it's better to keep costs low and satisfy a greater percentage of the population than increase the costs to satisfy a smaller percentage. That is the unfortunate truth, however if you're a gamer, using a 15" or maybe even a 17" monitor, chances are that you'd rather pay $130 for a card that suits your needs instead of paying $160 for a card that suits your needs as well as your neighbor with a 21" monitor. At the same time, if you put yourself in the shoes of your neighbor with the 21" monitor, chances are that your neighbor would rather pay $160 for a card that does everything they need it to do rather than pay $130 for a card of noticeably lesser quality.
It all depends on your perspective as a consumer, and instead of allowing users to have two options (a professional and a home use version) most manufacturers will go after the "one-size fits all" market and hope to succeed. In terms of 2D quality, the Voodoo3 is definitely top-notch, almost on level with that of the Matrox G200, and depending on your eyes in particular, you may not be able to notice any difference between the 2D quality on a Voodoo3 and on a Millennium G200. 3dfx definitely did a good job with making sure that the 2D quality of the Voodoo3 was up to par with the expectations of the market.
Way #1 to Say Single Card SLI: Voodoo3 2000
The Voodoo3 2000 is the entry-level 3dfx Voodoo3 accelerator, which should shortly be hitting the store shelves. One thing that needs to be made clear is that there is no difference between the core of a Voodoo3 2000 and the high-end 3500 model, the only differentiating factor is that the 3500 can be clocked at a higher frequency (possibly a better yield on the silicon itself) than the 2000, and is therefore clocked at that frequency and sold as a 3500. The original Voodoo3 2000, announced at Fall Comdex '98 was supposed to be clocked at 125MHz, however doing so would place it at a point where it would be just as fast, if not a little slower than a Voodoo2 SLI, meaning 3dfx would have a mob of angry supporters on their hands, instead 3dfx bumped the specification up to 143MHz for the 2000 model.
The Voodoo3 2000 is the only Voodoo3 that will be available as both a PCI and an AGP solution, the performance difference between a Voodoo3 2000 PCI and a 2000 AGP will be negligible, with the AGP version being a tad faster due to the implementation of the AGP 2X specification's greater transfer rates. As previously mentioned, the AGP Voodoo3 won't take advantage of AGP texturing, therefore you shouldn't be pulling your hair out if you don't have an AGP motherboard and are stuck with a Voodoo3 2000 PCI as your only option.
The 2000 uses the same 2D core that is present in all of the other Voodoo3 models, and features a 300MHz integrated RAMDAC. 3dfx wanted to distance themselves as greatly as possible from the mistakes with their Voodoo Rush that tainted the public's view of 3dfx's ability to make an integrated 2D/3D product, therefore the 2D output of the 2000 is top notch, aided by the 300MHz RAMDAC.
The Voodoo3 2000 should begin retailing at around the $130 mark, however you can expect to find sources that will be selling the cards for at least a little less than that.
Way #2: Voodoo3 3000
The Voodoo3 3000, offered in only an AGP solution (although it still doesn't take advantage of AGP texturing), bumps the clock speed up to 166MHz, and therefore begins to distance itself from the Voodoo2 SLI and the Voodoo3 2000, although not by a tremendous margin. Other than the added performance and the greater cost of the Voodoo3 3000, the only other advantages the 3000 model offers over the 2000 is the support for NTSC TV-Output and a 350MHz integrated RAMDAC instead of the 300MHz RAMDAC used on the 2000.
The 2D image quality is not tremendously improved on the 3000 because of the 350MHZ RAMDAC, and doesn't justify the added cost, the only reason one would pursue the 3000 over the 2000 is for the raw performance enhancements; this is mainly because of the fact that TV-Output is simply not clear enough, on today's NTSC/PAL TV screens, to be considered a viable option for many. Even playing a game on a TV can be extremely harsh on the eyes when outputting from a video card. Most users will prefer a 17" monitor to a 31" TV because of image quality alone.
The Voodoo3 3000 should be priced around the $160 mark upon its arrival; unfortunately it seems like getting the 3000's out and in to the hands of vendors will be a bit of a problem. Chances are that you'll see more 2000 models than anything else, if you're lucky, a 3000 may float your way.
Way #3: Voodoo3 3500
The Voodoo3 3500 is the true performance solution, clocked at an amazing 183MHz, the Voodoo3 3500 offers a noticeable improvement in performance over the 2000 and the Voodoo2 SLI, and as you might be able to guess, the card will be available at a premium cost. Initial estimates put the cost of a Voodoo3 3500 at around $220 to $250, too rich for the blood of most hard-core gamers.
Other than the increased clock speed, the 3500 comes with support for 3dfx's unique LCDfx Digital Output for Flat Panel LCD screens. Digital LCD screens are an interesting topic these days, the lack of a widely known and implemented interface standard will keep the Digital LCD screen from taking off in the desktop market, however in a couple of years, when one arrives, expect the days of the CRT to be numbered severely. Don't buy the Voodoo3 3500 simply because of its Digital LCD output support, you'll be wasting your money, the Digital LCD market has quite a bit of maturing to do before a move like that would be justified; and chances are that 3dfx's LCDfx won't become the standard the industry chooses to adopt, call it an educated hunch ;)
The Voodoo3 3500 features the same 350MHz RAMDAC as featured in the Voodoo3 3000, and the 2D quality of the 3500 is relatively unchanged from that of the 2000. The yield on the 3500's 183MHz processors and memory chips will make the availability of the cards limited for quite some time, don't expect to see the 3500's hitting the shelves at the same time the 2000's make it out of the doors of STB's plants. In the video card industry, according to those that are actually making the cards, 183MHz memory is difficult to come by, even if you happen to be 3dfx.
One Overrated Weakness: 32-bit Rendering
As you all probably have heard by now, 3dfx refused to support 32-bit color rendering with the Voodoo3 stating that the loss in performance would be too great to justify the "minimal" improvement in image quality. Because of every other major competitor's support for 32-bit rendering, primarily nVidia and ATI, 3dfx has come under major attack for their stand on this issue. With the release of id Software's Quake 3 Arena almost as highly anticipated as the next Star Wars movie, and with Q3A's allegedly noticeable implementation of 32-bit color rendering support, many users are upset with 3dfx for only supporting 16-bit rendering. 3dfx's response has been that their internal calculations are processed with 24-bit accuracy and then dithered to 16-bit, providing something similar to a hypothetical 22-bit color output, however the market is generally not buying that response at all.
The argument here is that, yes, 3dfx has failed to provide their users with 32-bit rendering support. And if you ask anyone that has been playing their games in 32-bit color, they'll tell you that there is a noticeable difference between 16-bit and 32-bit rendering. However if you ask a gamer that has always played their games in 16-bit color if they wake up every morning wishing that they had 32-bit color support, their answer would most likely be no. The bottom line here is that one of 3dfx's weaknesses with the Voodoo3 is definitely the lack of 32-bit rendering support, and if you're buying for the future, once again, 3dfx is not the path to follow as more and more games will begin to be built for 32-bit color rendering and will begin to look considerably better in 32-bit color. ATI has made it clear that 32-bit rendering is a viable possibility without a huge performance penalty, and 3dfx is arguing against that. 3dfx's next solution will most likely include 32-bit color rendering support, however until then, you need to ask yourself, how important is 32-bit color rendering to you? Find someone with a TNT or a Rage 128, and play a few of your games on their systems at 16-bit color then at 32-bit color, and decide for yourself. Is the difference noticeable? The answer to that is completely opinionated, find out for yourself, then decide whether or not 3dfx's obvious oversight is worth ditching the Voodoo3 for.
One Underrated Weakness: The OpenGL ICD
Matrox took the worst beating of all time when they failed to release their OpenGL ICD on time for the G200. It seemed like everyone, including AnandTech, was ragging on Matrox for releasing a killer product, but not bothering to spend the development time on a strong OpenGL ICD for the gamer in all of us. On the other hand, 3dfx has been living without an OpenGL ICD for quite some time now, and the worst they've received is a slap on the wrist. If 3dfx doesn't have an OpenGL ICD, then how does your Voodoo2 work in the latest games that aren't Direct3D accelerated? Simple, 3dfx can refrain from using OpenGL in a majority of the most popular games, due to the fact that their own custom API (like OpenGL or Direct3D) known as Glide, is incredibly popular already and most games do happen to support it, sometimes you'll find games that only support Glide in favor of OpenGL or Microsoft's Direct3D!
So what happens if a game you're trying to play doesn't have Glide support? Well, you can hope that it supports Direct3D acceleration, which the Voodoo3, as did the Voodoo2, Banshee, and Voodoo, supports. If it doesn't support Direct3D, then you're completely out of luck until 3dfx can release an OpenGL ICD. Because of the lack of an OpenGL ICD, 3dfx had to toss together a MiniGL driver for a number of the most popular games based on engines similar to one another so they wouldn't be placed in the same position Matrox was. This MiniGL driver provides for the quality and performance of the Voodoo3 to be taken advantage of, however the compatibility with the latest games is not at a level where you can expect support for every game to be provided for. Games such as Half-Life and Quake 2 (and all games based on the Quake 2 engine) are supported by the MiniGL driver, as will a large portion of future games, however one of the most underrated weaknesses of 3dfx is definitely the lack of an OpenGL ICD.
Because of the nature of this MiniGL driver, users of AMD K6-2/3 processor with 3DNow! enabled will have to perform a tiny hack to get the most performance out of their systems in games based on the Quake 2 engine that have 3DNow! accelerated 3dfxGL patches. The procedure is as follows:
- Rename the MiniGL driver provided with the Voodoo3, 3dfxgl.dll, to opengl32.dll in your game's base directory.
- Apply the 3DNow! patch from AMD
- Select 3DNow! Default OpenGL as the default rendering device in your video options.
The performance of the Voodoo3 on a K6-2/3 system is by far the greatest among all video accelerators, however AnandTech has refrained from the inclusion of a Super7 performance comparison in this review due to length constraints and will provide for one solely centered around Super7 systems at a later date.
The Test
AnandTech received a final revision Voodoo3 2000 AGP and a pre-release Voodoo3 3000 AGP for benchmarking purposes. AnandTech's Slot-1/Socket-370 test configuration was as follows:
- Intel Pentium III 500, Intel Pentium II 400, Intel Pentium II 266, Intel Celeron 333, Intel Celeron 266 (0KB L2) on an ABIT BX6 Revision 2.0 or an ABIT ZM6 for the Socket-370 Celeron 333 tests.
- 64MB of Memman/Mushkin SEC Original SDRAM was used in each test system
- Western Digital 5.1GB Ultra ATA/33 HDD
- Microsoft Windows 98
- Diamond Monster Fusion 16MB SGRAM Banshee, Matrox Mystique G200, ATI Rage 128 (16MB), nVidia Riva TNT (16MB), and Diamond Monster 3D-2 (12MB) were used for comparison tests
The benchmark software used was as follows:
- id Software's Quake 2 Version 3.20 using demo1.dm2 and 3Finger's crusher.dm2
- Monolith's Shogo 2.2 using 3Finger's RevDemo
- Acclaim's Turok2 using T2MARK
- Ziff Davis' Winbench 99 at 1600 x 1200 x 32-bit color for 2D performance tests
Each benchmark was run a total of three times and the average frame rate taken. V-Sync was disabled.
Pentium III 500 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) demo1.dm2
Pentium II 400 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) demo1.dm2
Pentium II 266 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) demo1.dm2
Celeron 333A Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) demo1.dm2
Celeron 266 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) demo1.dm2
CPU Scaling Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) demo1.dm2
Pentium III 500 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) crusher.dm2
Pentium II 400 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) crusher.dm2
Pentium II 266 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) crusher.dm2
Celeron 333A Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) crusher.dm2
Celeron 266 Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) crusher.dm2
CPU Scaling Performance - Quake 2 (OpenGL) crusher.dm2
Quake 2 Performance Conclusions
The Voodoo3 is the clear winner under Quake 2 as you would expect, however as an upgrade for Voodoo2 SLI users, the performance difference is negligible. You do achieve a boost in image quality, as the Voodoo3 is pretty much on the level with nVidia's TNT and ATI's Rage 128 in terms of 16-bit image quality, however other than that, if you're a Voodoo2 SLI user, you're probably better off sticking to your current configuration rather than spending your money on the Voodoo3 now.
The performance increase from a single Voodoo2 or a Banshee is noticeable, however the Voodoo3's performance at 800 x 600 shouldn't be the deciding factor, rather its ability to run at resolutions greater than 1024 x 768. Although 1600 x 1200 isn't extremely playable on slower CPU's (i.e. Pentium II 266, Celeron 266, etc) for those of you that happen to have faster processors (Pentium II 400+) you can enjoy the benefits of performance at 1600 x 1200 that is incredibly playable, ranging between 20 and 40 fps during gameplay. If you can't seem to get adjusted to the performance at 1600 x 1200, there are a number of in-between resolutions such as 1280 x 960 that may provide you with a nice tradeoff between image quality and performance.
The Voodoo3's clear advantage in games based on the Quake 2 engine is its ability to run at higher resolutions, at an extremely playable speed. If you're running a Voodoo3 at anything less than 1024 x 768, you're better off with a Voodoo2.
You'll also notice that once you approach the slower clock speeds such as the Pentium II 266, the bridge between the Dual Voodoo2 SLI and the Voodoo3 begins to collapse, often resulting in a difference of no more than a few frames per second. If you're in the situation where you have a slower processor, such as a low end Pentium II or one of the original cacheless Celerons, you'd be better off saving your current video card, provided that it is a Voodoo2, Banshee, or a TNT, and make an investment towards a faster processor, such as a Celeron which can run for around $100 now.
Pentium III 500 Performance - Shogo (Direct3D) RevShogo Demo
Pentium II 400 Performance - Shogo (Direct3D) RevShogo Demo
Pentium II 266 Performance - Shogo (Direct3D) RevShogo Demo
Celeron 333A Performance - Shogo (Direct3D) RevShogo Demo
Celeron 266 Performance - Shogo (Direct3D) RevShogo Demo
CPU Scaling Performance - Shogo (Direct3D) RevShogo Demo
Shogo RevShogo Performance Conclusions
Shogo is an excellent representation of a Direct3D based game, where the Voodoo3 barely offers an investment-worthy performance improvement over the Voodoo2 SLI solution. The main benefit of the Voodoo3 here, other than its support for higher resolutions at extremely playable frame rates, is the fact that it only occupies a single slot, whereas a Voodoo2 SLI solution would end up taking a total of three expansion slots including one for your 2D accelerator. A single card vs three separate cards is a definite winner for the Voodoo3, and with the 2000 model offering virtually identical performance to the 3000, there doesn't seem to be too much of a reason to opt for the more expensive 3000 model here.
The version of Shogo used in the comparison, 2.2, supposedly takes advantage of single pass multi-texturing; theoretically, the Voodoo2 should have outperformed the Banshee. However, because of the increased clock speed of the Banshee, and the fact that the Banshee used was the Diamond Fusion which used higher speed SGRAM, coupled with the somewhat weak implementation of multi-texturing in the Shogo 2.2 patch give the Banshee the edge over the Voodoo2 in some cases.
For users that already have a single Voodoo2, it may be cheaper to add a second Voodoo2 on to your current setup instead of shelling out for a new Voodoo3. That is, however, assuming that you don't mind occupying three slots for your video card configuration. Once again, for those users with slower CPU's, you'll want to hang on to your current video card, provided you already have a Banshee, Voodoo2, or a TNT, and invest your money in a processor upgrade rather than a faster video card that will end up being limited by your processor.
Turok2 (Direct3D/Glide) T2MARK
Turok2 is a good example of a case where there is virtually no difference between the Voodoo3 and the Voodoo2 SLI, and even a single Voodoo2/Banshee. Fortunately, for 3dfx at least, Turok2 isn't the world's most popular game; however, it does help illustrate the benefits of Glide support in a game.
2D Performance
Apparently the world can't live without 2D performance numbers, so here they are ;) Since the performance of all of the cards was virtually identical to one another at the lower resolutions, the basis for comparison was 1600 x 1200 x 32-bit color. The performance leader here is 3Dfx's Voodoo3, however most users won't notice any difference in the speed at which your windows pop up.
In terms of 2D quality, the leaders in this comparison would be the Voodoo3 and the Matrox G200, followed by the Banshee, then the Rage 128, and finally the TNT. Ever since the release of the Banshee, it seems as if 3dfx has concentrated quite a large portion of their effort towards producing a well made 2D/3D solution, without skimping on the 2D.
Final Words, the Future, and Should You Buy it?
3dfx has come a long way since the days when relatively few people even knew what GLQuake was, many will say that 3dfx will never have the glory they once attained with the original Voodoo, and there are others that will say that the Voodoo3 was everything that they expected it to be. Realistically, it seems like the Voodoo3 was everything a single-card SLI should have been, although one could argue that the higher clock rates would indicate a large enough difference to justify calling the Voodoo3 a dramatically new product, with the public availability of the 3000 boards quite limited, and the availability of the 3500's delayed for at least another month, that argument can easily be put to rest, for now.
3dfx did a good job with the Voodoo3, it wasn't a stellar production on 3dfx's part, the lack of 32-bit color rendering and AGP texturing support are among the two biggest gripes you'll have with the video card, and its lack of a true OpenGL ICD will keep most professionals from going down the path of the Voodoo3 as most professional 3D rendering programs require a fully functional OpenGL ICD to work properly. The 2D performance and 2D quality of the Voodoo3 are amazing, considering just last year 3dfx was a 3D-only company, whereas now they are going head to head with companies like Matrox that have been boasting their incredible 2D image quality for quite some time now.
The drivers 3dfx supplied AnandTech with were beta drivers, and did provide a few problems during some extended gameplay tests. While playing Shogo, the drivers did seem to exhibit some texture problems, where the walls would display artifacts every now and then while running at higher resolutions. Other than that, there were relatively few problems AnandTech experienced with the cards. The Voodoo3 did tend to get considerably hot during long-term operation, and although 3dfx will be shipping the boards with heatsinks, you may want to consider attaching a fan onto the board to keep things running smoothly. 3dfx did supply AnandTech with a list of known issues, with most of them having been fixed since the release of the erratum list. The most glaring problems involved incorrect textures being drawn, however the final revision of the drivers should put an end to all problems of that nature. The drivers 3dfx supplied AnandTech did feature a few interesting control panels and utilities, however the look and feel of the final revision may be different depending on what 3dfx chooses to do with them.
So now we get to the final decision, should you buy the Voodoo3? If you currently own a single Voodoo2, an upgrade to a Voodoo3 should only be made if you don't want to take up another slot with a second Voodoo2, or if you desperately feel the need to run at resolutions greater than 1024 x 768. For those of you with slower processors, once again, you're better off with a single Voodoo2 or a TNT and putting the extra money towards a CPU upgrade to something like a Celeron.
Voodoo2 SLI owners will find it quite difficult tossing out three of their video cards in favor of a single Voodoo3 solution that isn't all that much faster, the only reason for pursuing the Voodoo3 in this case would be to cut down on the number of slots/IRQs occupied and to be able to play at resolutions greater than 1024 x 768. In terms of performance, the Voodoo3 3000 doesn't offer too much over the 2000, so it would seem that the 2000 would be the best overall choice for any user, unless you desperately need the TV-Output of the 3000 model.
Since all of the boards will be coming out of the same plant, in a few months time you can probably expect to see what AnandTech likes to call, the Celery-effect, where a 2000 will sometimes be able to make it up to higher clock speeds such as those of a 3000 or maybe even a 3500 if the yield on the processor and the quality of the RAM is high enough. With video cards, overclocking is a bit more difficult to accomplish, since the stability of the RAM is difficult to guarantee at greater frequencies, however it may be worth a try.
The image quality of the Voodoo3 is a noticeable improvement over the Voodoo2, pretty much on par with that of the Banshee. So migrating from a TNT to a Voodoo3, if you're in the position that you absolutely must have the added performance, shouldn't put you in too bad of a position in terms of image quality, and plus, the improvement in 2D image quality should make up for any 3D image degradation.
Now comes the long awaited mention of nVidia's lurking monster, the TNT2. Preliminary benchmarks have already shown the TNT2 to be able to go head to head with and pretty much dominate the Voodoo3, however there isn't a person out there that doesn't remember nVidia's 125MHz TNT fiasco of 1998, where they promised one thing, and delivered a part that was considerably slower. At the same time, video card manufacturers are already shouting 150MHz clock speeds to everyone that asks, so it seems like nVidia may have the potential to pull through this time, with the TNT2, scheduled to begin shipping in May. Whether or not the TNT2 will live up to expectations and dominate the market, including the Voodoo3, is up to time to tell, rest assured that AnandTech will have a thorough comparison of the Voodoo3 and the TNT2 as soon as the specifications are finalized and the cards ready to begin shipping. Until then, April seems like it will be the month of the Voodoo3, let's hope, for 3dfx's sake, that nVidia won't make a fool out of them in May.