After reading all of the other messages on this discussion board I am left with the impression that voodoo3 is the only solution for good graphics on AMD systems. TNT2 has a better set of features but poor performance in terms of FPS on AMD based systems. Is it really that bad thought, I mean humans can't really tell the difference between 35FPS or 60+ FPS can we? Do you guys know how the G400 Max, Savage4 Pro, and the Asus v3800(TNT2) compares with voodoo3 on AMD? If you onwed a AMD K6-2 400 for example, and wanted to upgrade your video card, which card would you choose? I can't believe how hard it is to find quality information today's newest video cards.
Well Mike I don't know about the TNT2 but I did own a TNT. I have an AMD K6-2 350 on an ASUS P5A m/b with a Velocity 4400 AGP I have had for the last 6 months. I never could get Quake2 to run right. One day it would be fine the next, 2 hours or tweaking to get it to work. The quality of TNT is without a doubt better than the Voodoo's (in my opinion). I broke down and bought a Voodoo3 2000 ( that I am going to O/C eventualy) and all I can say is WOW. The quality of picture in 2D is the same, in 3D the TNT is better at blending ( like clouds) by far but the Voodoo is silk smooth up to 1280x740 ( for me ) and I think the 3D images look better...( ie... people, boxes, etc..) And one major advantage of the Voodoo3 is no errors or lockups. Not one so far. It was an everyday thing with the TNT. 3dfx did AMD right. IF you own and AMD then a Voodoo3 is the ONLY way to go....thats my two cents....
I have a K6-3 450 with a Rage Fury, and
Quake runs like it's on afterburners compared to my PII 350 with FireGL 1000 Pro.
I'd tried the Rage Fury in the 350, but the controls were unresponsive in high-res modes.