Budget Video Comparison - November 1999

With the Celeron 300A, the Voodoo3 2000 takes the OpenGL performance crown at higher resolutions, do largely to its full 128-bit memory bus. However, at lower resolutions, the Savage4 Xtreme with the Savage4 Pro+ and TNT2 M64 bunched up just behind it. Note that the performance difference among the cards at low resolution is minimal because performance is CPU limited under these circumstances. Direct3D Expendable results are similar, with the TNT2 M64 taking the lead under all resolutions.

Overclocking that same Celeron to 450 MHz yields a slightly different outcome. The Voodoo3 is still the king at high resolutions, but at lower resolutions, performance differences become much more apparent. The M64 takes a slight lead over the Savage 4 Xtreme under these circumstances, while the Savage 4 Pro+ falls way back. It’s interesting to note that the only card that the Savage 4 Xtreme and Pro+ can beat out at 1024x768 is the Velocity with only 1 TMU enabled. Under Direct3D, the M64 again jumps into the lead at every resolution, while the Savage 4 line falls far behind as the resolution is pushed up. The Voodoo3 2000 and Velocity 100 are a close second.

Note that under every CPU, resolution, and benchmark combination, the Velocity 100 with both TMU’s enabled performs nearly identically to the Voodoo3 2000. To learn how to enable that TMU, read AnandTech’s 3dfx Velocity 100 Review. This is only required under OpenGL / Glide, as both TMU’s are already enabled under Direct3D.

Both the Savage 4 series and the TNT2 M64 support 32-bit rendering, but incur a large performance penalty due to their 64-bit memory bus that greatly limits memory bandwidth. This puts frame rates a bit low at 800x600, and in the unplayable range at 1024x768. The Savage 4 Xtreme outshines the M64 in this area under OpenGL, but again falls behind in Direct3D.

The venerable Voodoo2 hangs in there pretty well for such an old chipset, but has been surpassed by newer cards in almost all aspects. If your CPU is from Intel and runs at 300 MHz or above, there’s no reason to go for a Voodoo2. If you’ve already got a single Voodoo2, adding another one may be the best way to boost your performance at a relatively low price. If your CPU is slower than 300 MHz or a K6-2, the Voodoo2 may be a good match for a quick 3D fix, but a CPU upgrade should be seriously considered before moving on to a higher performing 3D card.

K6-2 systems actually seem to perform better with the Voodoo2 under Direct3D than with other 3dfx cards, falling only behind the TNT2 M64. This possibly hints at better 3DNow! optimizations in the Voodoo2 drivers compared with the Voodoo3.

Although we’ve reached a point now where 2D performance is not a major bottleneck, we’ve included 2D Winbench 99 scores for those that are interested. However, any of these cards will provide more than adequete performance. It is interesting to note the Velocity’s 2D performance is a good bit slower than the Voodoo3, although the cards appear to be identical in every other respect.