Voodoo 5 alternatives?
Home | Reviews and Features | Special Reports | Forums |

Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Voodoo 5 alternatives?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    15

    Voodoo 5 alternatives?

    A couple days ago i decided that a voodoo 5 would be the card that would be best for me. That was until i heard 3dfx was dead. So now that getting a voodoo 5 would be dumb because of a lack of future driver support, what card should i get for a low end system. All i need to know about is a card that doenst rely heavily on the processor (p2 350). Im curious, hows the 32mb radeon ddr.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    115
    try reading some reviews on hardware websites.

    ------------------
    Asus A7v
    Tbird 800
    256mb pc133
    40g ata100 Maxtor
    GF2 64mb
    Sony 5x dvd
    MP2 Decoder
    Sony 10x4x32
    SBLive
    DLink 10/100
    Win2k professional/server
    Asus A7v
    Tbird 800
    256mb pc133
    40g ata100 Maxtor
    GF2 64mb
    Sony 5x dvd
    MP2 Decoder
    Sony 10x4x32
    SBLive
    DLink 10/100
    Win2k professional/server

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    San Antonio, TX USA
    Posts
    1,214
    Hey I'd still get the V5 5500 if I were you! Don't worry about driver updates all that much. The drivers we have right now for the V4/V5 are excellent and I'm sure that Nvidia will keep the 3dfx driver team going. Even if they don't the current drivers work great.

    Sincerely,

    Best4x4

    [This message has been edited by Best4x4 (edited 12-17-2000).]

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Bloomington, IL, USA
    Posts
    566
    I agree. Get a voodoo5, there will still be a few more driver releases by my guess, plus the current drivers can improve performance significantly.
    -ram

    ------------------
    Yeah... bout' the only thing you wouldn't want to overclock, would be your clock...
    Unless you just want to be early all the time..
    Yeah... bout' the only thing you wouldn't want to overclock, would be your clock...
    Unless you just want to be early all the time..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,281
    But with only a p2 350 i think the voodoo5 will not perform at is best. right guys? Some say a p3 800 or higher could be better so that the voodoo5 can produce the maximum of is "power"

    ------------------
    Pc are like girlfriends!
    Sometime they give you some problem that you have to find out by yourself!
    Asus P5Q
    Intel core 2 Duo 3ghz 1333 fsb 6mb L2 cache
    OCZ Gold XTC 4GB DDR2-1066
    Asus ati3870 512mb pci express 16
    80Gig Hd Sata
    Vista Home premium

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Posts
    15
    Well ive heard differnt things. Onething i heard from a review is that a v5 is a good low end machine card. Whether thats true or not im not sure. I just hope nvidia puts out dome more drivers.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    2,689
    The voodoo 5 is not as good on a weak CPU as the geforce2 MX because of the lack of T&L. Get either the MX or the Radeon SDR.

    ------------------
    Gimme my TriLevel Cache
    Modded Matrox Parhelia 128mb Retail
    AGUIA Y TBRED 1700+@2ghz
    Epox 8K3A+

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Libby
    Posts
    3
    Forget Voodoo people. According to all the benchmark numbers the latest Voodoo 5 doesnt even stack up to the first Geforce video card. And compared to the Geforce2 it plain SUCKS! 3D Mark 2000 scores the Voodoo 5 about half as good as the low end Geforce 2 models.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Libby
    Posts
    3
    Forget Voodoo people. According to all the benchmark numbers the latest Voodoo 5 doesnt even stack up to the first Geforce video card. And compared to the Geforce2 it plain SUCKS! 3D Mark 2000 scores the Voodoo 5 about half as good as the low end Geforce 2 models.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    San Antonio, TX USA
    Posts
    1,214
    3DMark 2000 is biased towards Nvidia cards dude! Real life gaming performance can't be judged by just running one benchmarking program. Are their benchmarking programs for image quality and card stability/compatiblity? No, but if their was the V5 5500 would blow the competition away!

    Sincerely,

    Best4x4

    P.S. And the FSAA on the V5 5500 is at least usefull in 2x. FSAA on any Nvidia card is a joke. The only thing you can do on a Nvidia based card is play the game in a higher resolution vs using FSAA.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    San Antonio, TX USA
    Posts
    1,214
    Creator you seem to have all sorts of problems with just about every piece of hardware out there for the modern PC don't you? Yes 3DMark 2000 is biased towards Nvidia cards. And no it isn't a true benchmarking program to find out the actual gaming performance of any certain video card.

    I for one think you should trade in your PC for a Macintosh G3/G4 and be done with it.

    Sincerely,

    Best4x4

    [This message has been edited by Best4x4 (edited 12-18-2000).]

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Deutschland
    Posts
    936
    Creator, I wouldn't say that 3DMark2000 is deliberately biased towards nVidia. I'd say that it's just a very poorly designed benchmark, bearing no resemblance whatsoever with ANY real game, and which (totally by accident) happens to favour nVidia cards.

    Lemme explain why.

    1) For starters, it uses huge numbers of polygons. Even the medium quality "game" tests push ludicriously high numbers of polgons, compared to any actual game, existing or currently in the making.

    2) It uses very little texturing power. For starters, most of the rendering is done in vertex lighting mode, which means it's mostly a single-texturing application. (That's why, for example, it has put the S3 Savage2000 at an artifficial disadvantage vs the GeForce SDR.) Most actual modern games (e.g., Q3A, to quote another T&L enabled title) use lightmaps, and a ludicrious ammount of multi-texturing. According to John Carmack (you may have heard of him ) the Q3A engine can use up to 8-10 textures per polygon.

    3) The default test is in 16 bit colour. Which, combined with the mostly single texture use, doesn't even come close to stressing the memory bandwidth even on a SDR card, much less on a DDR one. (That's why, for example, the GeForce SDR and the MX score so high, when in practice you'll get a lot less fps with them in Q3A.)

    So basically, again, it's just a lousy artifficial benchmark, which doesn't even come close to reflecting any game reality. It tends to stress polygon processing, including their transfer through the AGP bus, WAAAAAY more than the texturing.

    For example, according to 3DMark2000, I was MUCH better off with a lower CPU speed, but a higher overclocked AGP bus. Strangely enough, no actual game ever showed the same anomaly. Go figure.

    ------------------
    Moraelin -- the proud member of the Idiots' Guild

    [This message has been edited by Moraelin (edited 12-19-2000).]
    Moraelin -- the proud member of the Idiots' Guild

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    San Antonio, TX USA
    Posts
    1,214
    I own a lot more than just one V5 5500 video card. I have all sorts of video cards from Nvidia, 3dfx, S3, and ATI

    Sincerely,

    Best4x4

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Yokohama, Japan
    Posts
    928
    "GF2 is faster, and that's why it's faster. End of story."

    What are you saying here?
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •