Voodoo 3 debut! - Avault

Will this be a 2D/3D combo card? Also, does anyone know if it will actually support the AGP x2?

i want one now.... NOW I say!!

> Will this be a 2D/3D combo card? Also, does anyone know if it will >actually support the AGP x2? One of them is 2d/3d (can't remember which one, MAYBE all of them...). It supports AGP 2X (4X "soon"; whatever that means). "Gunner" ORSA Bronze #78 Navy Dodge truck

I've read that these boards still won't be able to do coloring at 16-Bit or better, there're still only doing 256 colors, i'd stick to the Voodoo2 until they do have 16-Bit+ colors. Dwayne W. Nascar United - Co-Webmaster http://mars.spaceports.com/~nasunite/ NASCAR HOT!!! - Webmaster http://olympia.fortunecity.com/afl/113/ Gravity Delight Racing - Webmaster/Team Owner http://mars.spaceports.com/~nasunite/GDR/Gdrmain.html TEAM SITES Webring - Ringmaster http://mars.spaceports.com/~nasunite/GDR/Teamsitering.html Jeff Gordon Fan Site - Webmaster http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/6034/

Yes it is a 2d/3d board and does support AGP 2x.. They also have plans to support AGP 4x with the Voodoo 3 -4000 later this year. Although these board will support AGP 2x and 4x they will not use the AGP Graphics port to store textures in the system memory as AGP was meant to do.. Cowen > Will this be a 2D/3D combo card? Also, does anyone know if it will >actually support the AGP x2?

Your information is incorrect. These boards will support 16bit color but WILL NOT support 32bit color as 3dfx feels it would be too much of a performance hit. Cowen >I've read that these boards still won't be able to do coloring at 16-Bit >or better, there're still only doing 256 colors, i'd stick to the Voodoo2 >until they do have 16-Bit+ colors.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Your information is incorrect. These boards will support 16bit color but > WILL NOT support 32bit color as 3dfx feels it would be too much of a > performance hit. > Cowen > >I've read that these boards still won't be able to do coloring at 16-Bit > >or better, there're still only doing 256 colors, i'd stick to the Voodoo2 > >until they do have 16-Bit+ colors.

Who cares... most games will not support the 32 bit colors... or so I read. Philster

The fact is the only reason the ATI Rage fury can render 32bit color so well is because they screwed up the 16bit rendering so bad performance can only get better in 32 bit.. I mean look at the screenshots of Rage Fury in 16 bit. They stink. You can actually see the rings where the colors change. That is not the makings of a quality video accelerator. Cowen

The new V3 cards from 3dfx are in a sense new technology because they took the two chip setup from Voodoo2 and put in on one chip as well as added 2d support. As for TNT and Rage Fury being new technology, that is hardly the case. The fact is the basis of both those chip were taken from Voodoo 2. Single Pass Multitexturing is what runs the TNT and the Rage fury and that is a patented technology from 3dfx. Had it not been for 3dfx it would have been a little longer before we saw this technology. It was proven my 3dfx in a court of law that nvidia stole the Single pass mutitexturing from 3dfx. Whereas in most people minds this means nothing and granted they are all great video cards, but I just don't have as much respect for companies that took another patented technology in one form or another.. Cowen For the last 2 years, 3DFX has

Nope, but they will support 24bit color. And 24bit looks a hell of a lot better than 16bit. Not to mention the V3s are STILL stuck with the 256x256 max size for textures where everyone else is at 2kx2k. On top of that, S3's texture compression is NOW a part of the DirectX which supports very large textures. In addition, even though the V3 sits in an AGP port it really doesnt use all its features. Personally, while speed is essential if I can get 30+fps with 24bit color at 1024x768 then I will be happy. 30+fps at 1200x800+ at 16bit color really doesnt thrill me all that much. Not to mention I have 2 V2s already. ;)

Where did you read this?.... as I would like to read it!... As far as I know they haven't been to court yet so that alleged patent infringement has yet to be decided

My first impression is that the more expensive models sure don't look much better than the 2000. Apparently the 3500 is 100% more expensive than the 2000 and in theory about 25% faster. It will be interesting to see how these things test out. rob. <snip> <snip>

Chris: Check out articles about Bitboy's Glaze3d. www.bitboys.com. I believe this is the correct web site. It will have: 400 million dual textured pixels/sec 400 million gourard shaded pixels/sec 400 million dual or bilinear filtering integrated programmable floating point accurate triangle set engine can handle 3 million fully featured triangles /sec 32-bit true color rendering pipeline Four simultaneous textures are supported in a single rendering pass with trilinear mip-mapping. Supports DX6 Bump mapping etc. Scalable architecture from 200 million to 800 million rendered pixels per second. Also, triangle set up from 3 million upward to full geometry processing within the core. memory is from 6.4 GB required for true color rendering of 400 million pixels/sec using Direct RDRAM. I am going to wait to see what the V3/4000 Nvidia's TNT2 and the Glaze3D looks like before I spend another dime. I am willing to go from my P2/400 to a a 500 or better to combine with this type of card .... if the software requirements are there and the software is worth the expense:<) Roland

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Nope, but they will support 24bit color. And 24bit looks a hell of a lot > better than 16bit. Not to mention the V3s are STILL stuck with the 256x256 > max size for textures where everyone else is at 2kx2k. On top of that, S3's > texture compression is NOW a part of the DirectX which supports very large > textures. In addition, even though the V3 sits in an AGP port it really > doesnt use all its features. Personally, while speed is essential if I can > get 30+fps with 24bit color at 1024x768 then I will be happy. 30+fps at > 1200x800+ at 16bit color really doesnt thrill me all that much. Not to > mention I have 2 V2s already. ;)

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999 20:13:18 -0500, "Cowen Wilson" >Whereas in most people minds this means nothing and granted they are all >great video cards, but I just don't have as much respect for companies that >took another patented technology in one form or another.. Duh!!! So in the pc world ,hmmm maybe you save intel&ibm, too bad for those japanese who reverse the ibm bios and made possible the pc revolution (in the process making uncle billy really rich). In the mac moron world, hmmmm ,lets see the windows interface ,damn it they copied it from xerox. In the linux droid camp, Linus Tovalds hmmmmmmmmm, too bad he hacked Minix a unix flavour. ? The Null-A (TM) Corporation 1999 All Rights Reserved.

>http://avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=2121999-12443 >Friday, February 12, 1999 - 12:04 CST >3Dfx Debuts Voodoo3 2000, 3000 and 3500 >Source: 3Dfx Interactive Is 100+ frames/sec even noticable by the human eye? Also, should I dump my old card now, while the gettin's good (Diamond Monster 3D).

Quoted text (12 lines)

> http://avault.com/news/displaynews.asp?story=2121999-12443 > Friday, February 12, 1999 - 12:04 CST > 3Dfx Debuts Voodoo3 2000, 3000 and 3500 > Source: 3Dfx Interactive > [...] > Using the industry standard Quake II time demo > benchmark, demo versions of the Voodoo3 product are capable of > generating record frame rates of over 106 frames per second at a > resolution of 800x600, over 84 frames per second at 1024x768, and a > remarkable 35 plus frames per second at 1600x1200.

Hmmm, do those benchmarks seem a bit low to anyone ? 640x480 107 800x600 105 1024x768 87 What is the big deal ????

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 14:33:37 +1000, Saltheart

Quoted text (13 lines)

>> Using the industry standard Quake II time demo >> benchmark, demo versions of the Voodoo3 product are capable of >> generating record frame rates of over 106 frames per second at a >> resolution of 800x600, over 84 frames per second at 1024x768, and a >> remarkable 35 plus frames per second at 1600x1200. >Hmmm, do those benchmarks seem a bit low to anyone ? >640x480 107 >800x600 105 >1024x768 87 >What is the big deal ????

My understanding is that 3Dfx never said the V3 would be faster or much faster than a V2 SLI setup. The big deal is that it's a single card with the added bonus of 2D built in. I haven't really been following the prices of the various V3's but they may even be cheaper than buying two V2's. I don't know if I'll buy one myself, I'm sure they will be very fast but I'm a bit let down by the 16bit and texture size limitations. The card that currently has my interest is the Savage 4. The texture compression screen shots I've seen are amazing. If you haven't seen them already, head on over to S3's homepage and check out the Unreal screenshots. Especially the Egyptian ones. Tony

What test was that? I was in the CAF for 20 years and never received an eye examination that had Hz in the results. Just curious :) Mike