Interesting video. I would say that the 3D performance of the Banshee was far from being a disaster. Sure it was slower than the V2 in games that used multitexturing but it was faster in Direct3D and games that didn’t use multitexturing. The Banshee also had many advantages over the V2, the most important one being a significantly better image quality.
For Sin and other Quake 2 engine games to work in 3dfx OpenGL in higher resolutions, 3dfx miniGL has to be installed. 7:45 - with the 3d filter set to high (22-bit) if you look at dark textures / walls up close in Quake 2 / Unreal engine games you will notice that the image quality is much better.
10:40 - I have to partially disagree with you here, the first Geforce released on the market in October 1999, the SDram version, didn’t annihilate the Voodoo 3 3500 since it was faster by around 30-50% only in OpenGL, by 10-30% in Direct3D games and SLOWER than the V3 3500 in Glide games by 10-20%. And there were many Glide games in 1999 and even 2000. Also the 16-bit image quality of the Voodoo 3 was clearly superior to that of the Geforce 256, especially so if the 22-bit filter is activated. The Geforce 256 SDram isn’t really capable of running in 32-bit since it looses some 50% performance compared to 16 bit. Nvidia did a great job marketing the features of the Geforce 256 SDram which on paper sounded amazing but in reality the card's overall performance wasn't spectacular at all (except maybe for OpenGL games). The Geforce 256 DDR released in December 1999 on the other hand was much faster and it could handle 32-bit gaming significantly better than the SDram version but its price was also much higher. It would be great if you would benchmark the Geforce 256 SDram against the Voodoo 3 3500.
22 bit filter is b*lls*it. it makes game to look unrealistic, as it is only approximation. It often screw details on textures and on corners. Geforce 256 in 32-bit has superior quality, thanks to nothing is faked, and is showed, how it was meant, so overall, it is superior in all 3D API, because 32bit color > than 16bit Glide 22 bit faked color. They cannot be measured by same FPS voodoo3 is old behemoth, and 3dfx start to lose here. It didnt even win over TNT2 , and you are telling us here, it is better than Geforce 256. lol... I love these 3dfx maniacs. They should get some reality check. 3dfx slept and lost competition. They didn't move to 180nm in time, they didn't move to AGP 4x, which is now causing lots of problems on newer motherboard. lol, to release AGP 3.3V only card in 1999, is just no-no. 3dfx lost it, because they sucked, and did lots of mistakes in a row. Not to mention, they didnt apply hardware T&L in 2000, what a joke of company. They deserved to bankrupt.
@@warrax111 the 22-bit filter was great, it improved the 16-bit image quality for just 1-2% performance loss. The TNT2 and Geforce on the other hand lost some 50% performance from 16 to 32-bit. The Geforce 256 SDRAM was just marginally faster than the Voodoo 3 3500, but it was released 7 months after the Voodoo 3. 3dfx lost to nvidia in the year 2000, the Geforce 2 MX and GTS / Ultra being the ones who killed 3dfx. Yes, 3dfx made some very stupid mistakes thats why they went bankrupt but their products were great except for the V4 4500 released at the end of 2000 and the Voodoo Rush in 1997.
@@BurningFlame1999 nope, 22-bit filter is not great, because it not showing what original author wanted to show. It's like when some painter make Mona Lisa, and you tweak his colors with algorythm, that guess, when it can "average" partner pixel colors. It works kinda good in middle of textures, but it decrease "realism" on edges of polygons, because program cannot guess good, what author wanted to show. It will blur some colors and texture, or average them innacuratly. It's not near real 22-bit color, or 24-bit color mode, it tries basically decieve you, that it blurs and average everything. I would never play with that, I always want to see reality, not some AI algorythm, that screwing things. I also never watch any AI stuff, it's brainwasher, that grab you out of reality. Always only real pictures, even when they are lower quality. But most of the people like to be decieved. This is what I've observed from reality.
I have the voodoo 3 2000 is my 98 gaming rig. For retro gaming it blows everything else away. Quake and nfs3 play smootly like butter. Very impressed ;)
I had both a Voodoo3 3000 and Geforce 256 DDR and I remember that the Voodoo had horrendous video output quality compared to the Geforce and even the TNT series. My DVDs and Windows desktop looked terrible on that card. The output looked grainy and dark and just plain inferior to the nVidia cards of the time.
That is a very strange accent, it is hard to understand. Where do you live? Hope you speak clearer next videos. By TNT2 time, 3dfx was over. Best wishes.
False. The Voodoo 3 was highly succesful, sold in great numbers. And the TNT2 was clearly inferior to the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance, compatibility and image quality. The downfall of 3dfx came only in the year 2000 after the release of the Voodoo 5500 and 4500.
@@BurningFlame1999 *_False. The Voodoo 3 was highly succesful, sold in great numbers. And the TNT2 was clearly inferior to the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance, compatibility and image quality. The downfall of 3dfx came only in the year 2000 after the release of the Voodoo 5500 and 4500._* That is kind of right as I expressed poorly. So it is not right ha ha. Knowing the future, the writing was on the wall already for 3dfx. TNT and TNT2 were much more successful, they sold in much bigger numbers compared to 3dfx competitors. Remember 3dfx alienated all the Taiwanese manufacturers like Asus, when they purchased STB and their business plan was fully producing the video card on themselves with zero or little production from other manufacturers. That level of vertical integration is an extremely difficult feat. Not even Intel or Amd could do it with mainboards up to today. Amd even outsourced CPU manufacturing! TNT2 is a bit slower on some tests but cheaper and much easier to find as it was produced in much bigger quantities. Compatibility was excellent and video quality was good too. It was only missing proprietary Glide support which was already in decline with all the other proprietary 3d APIs. It had very good performance on the standards APIs Direct3d and OpenGL. ¿Bad performance? They released TNT2 ultra. ¿Too expensive? Use TNT2 M64. Nvidia had a family of products, from very cheap to gamer / expensive. Voodoo 3 was a gamer specific expensive card mostly. ¿Compatibility? Nvidia had full OpenGL support, which was unheard of for a consumer card at the time and very good drivers. And new drivers were released constantly. *_TNT2 was clearly inferior to the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance, compatibility and image quality_* It was not clearly inferior at all. It was a close fight and Voodoo 3 loses on some items. By that time Id software and Unreal 3d engines both had OpenGL support and they forecasted standard 3d API were the future. And Nvidia had very good support. I think I would bought a TNT2 at the time. I'm no Nvidia/Ati/3dfx/etc. fan. I'm fan of my wallet ha. Voodoo 3 was not scalable, so it kind of ended burying 3dfx. Nvidia short release cycles were brutal for the time. Best wishes.
dude, too late. retro scene already made 1000 reviews of this types. Rather do old card that is not reviewed well. I will not even watch it, as I am tired of these reviews, that swarmed youtube in last 5 years. They are all the same, same information, nothing new. I saw it 1000x times, why another 12 minutes video? Particulary voodoo2 and voodoo3 card is least card that need new review.
The Voodoo 3 has so many reviews because it was the best card on the market in early and mid 1999. Every gamer wanted one back then. Also the Voodoo 1 and 2 were the best of the best in 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 respectively.
@@BurningFlame1999 I know it, but I wont watch another same review, with same stuff, 90% stuff of these kind of videos are repeating. Always same story. This is what I told, that new voodoo3 review is worthless.
@@elektronischermeister I didn't watch it. I watch only first few seconds, maybe a half minute or minute, I dont remember that. And them I've realized, what I've written, like I'm wasting the time. All the same and same story again, what I saw milion times. Same quotes, same information, same benchmarks, same findings... nothing new. So I've turned off video and written frustrated comments. Why to waste time to 1001th review of voodoo3, with 99% same informational value, when there are interesting cards not reviewed so much (for example S3 savage 3d)
@@warrax111 funny you say S3 Savage, because in that era I was using S3 Savage4 from 1999 to 2005. Years later I had the opportunity to use 3dfx Banshee and 3dfx Voodoo3. It was smoother and faster to use any of those 3dfx cards than my old S3 Savage4. The only nice thing about the Savage4 was S3TC textures: they were really amazing. But compatibility and speed the 3dfx was a better experience overall.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting video. I would say that the 3D performance of the Banshee was far from being a disaster. Sure it was slower than the V2 in games that used multitexturing but it was faster in Direct3D and games that didn’t use multitexturing. The Banshee also had many advantages over the V2, the most important one being a significantly better image quality.
For Sin and other Quake 2 engine games to work in 3dfx OpenGL in higher resolutions, 3dfx miniGL has to be installed. 7:45 - with the 3d filter set to high (22-bit) if you look at dark textures / walls up close in Quake 2 / Unreal engine games you will notice that the image quality is much better.
Thanks for the video, from my hazy memory I thought that the voodoo3 and TNT2 were competitors. Seems in these games there is no contest
10:40 - I have to partially disagree with you here, the first Geforce released on the market in October 1999, the SDram version, didn’t annihilate the Voodoo 3 3500 since it was faster by around 30-50% only in OpenGL, by 10-30% in Direct3D games and SLOWER than the V3 3500 in Glide games by 10-20%. And there were many Glide games in 1999 and even 2000. Also the 16-bit image quality of the Voodoo 3 was clearly superior to that of the Geforce 256, especially so if the 22-bit filter is activated. The Geforce 256 SDram isn’t really capable of running in 32-bit since it looses some 50% performance compared to 16 bit. Nvidia did a great job marketing the features of the Geforce 256 SDram which on paper sounded amazing but in reality the card's overall performance wasn't spectacular at all (except maybe for OpenGL games). The Geforce 256 DDR released in December 1999 on the other hand was much faster and it could handle 32-bit gaming significantly better than the SDram version but its price was also much higher. It would be great if you would benchmark the Geforce 256 SDram against the Voodoo 3 3500.
The Geforce can do whatever it want, it didn't look as good as glide so it was pointless
You're right, I was simply comparing only the fastest cards both companies released.
22 bit filter is b*lls*it.
it makes game to look unrealistic, as it is only approximation. It often screw details on textures and on corners.
Geforce 256 in 32-bit has superior quality, thanks to nothing is faked, and is showed, how it was meant, so overall, it is superior in all 3D API, because 32bit color > than 16bit Glide 22 bit faked color. They cannot be measured by same FPS
voodoo3 is old behemoth, and 3dfx start to lose here. It didnt even win over TNT2 , and you are telling us here, it is better than Geforce 256. lol... I love these 3dfx maniacs. They should get some reality check.
3dfx slept and lost competition. They didn't move to 180nm in time, they didn't move to AGP 4x, which is now causing lots of problems on newer motherboard. lol, to release AGP 3.3V only card in 1999, is just no-no.
3dfx lost it, because they sucked, and did lots of mistakes in a row. Not to mention, they didnt apply hardware T&L in 2000, what a joke of company. They deserved to bankrupt.
@@warrax111 the 22-bit filter was great, it improved the 16-bit image quality for just 1-2% performance loss. The TNT2 and Geforce on the other hand lost some 50% performance from 16 to 32-bit. The Geforce 256 SDRAM was just marginally faster than the Voodoo 3 3500, but it was released 7 months after the Voodoo 3. 3dfx lost to nvidia in the year 2000, the Geforce 2 MX and GTS / Ultra being the ones who killed 3dfx. Yes, 3dfx made some very stupid mistakes thats why they went bankrupt but their products were great except for the V4 4500 released at the end of 2000 and the Voodoo Rush in 1997.
@@BurningFlame1999 nope, 22-bit filter is not great, because it not showing what original author wanted to show.
It's like when some painter make Mona Lisa, and you tweak his colors with algorythm, that guess, when it can "average" partner pixel colors.
It works kinda good in middle of textures, but it decrease "realism" on edges of polygons, because program cannot guess good, what author wanted to show. It will blur some colors and texture, or average them innacuratly.
It's not near real 22-bit color, or 24-bit color mode, it tries basically decieve you, that it blurs and average everything. I would never play with that, I always want to see reality, not some AI algorythm, that screwing things. I also never watch any AI stuff, it's brainwasher, that grab you out of reality. Always only real pictures, even when they are lower quality.
But most of the people like to be decieved. This is what I've observed from reality.
Great work with some interesting results! Looking forward to part 2 ;-)
I have the voodoo 3 2000 is my 98 gaming rig. For retro gaming it blows everything else away. Quake and nfs3 play smootly like butter. Very impressed ;)
Have you by any chance tested the TNT2 Ultra in 32bit mode by accident?? Coz these results can't be right... 😳
Must have used the latest drivers and probably in 32-bit color. On good drivers in some games performance can increase by nearly 100%. Poor test...
@@damiannowotka1394 It is incredible that you need to hunt "good drivers" from nvidia.
Really well done video👍
I had both a Voodoo3 3000 and Geforce 256 DDR and I remember that the Voodoo had horrendous video output quality compared to the Geforce and even the TNT series. My DVDs and Windows desktop looked terrible on that card. The output looked grainy and dark and just plain inferior to the nVidia cards of the time.
Nice video, like!
1:25 ..and finally Nvidia's like 3dfx! Nowadays YAY 😕
^'cause They really CAN now...
That is a very strange accent, it is hard to understand.
Where do you live?
Hope you speak clearer next videos.
By TNT2 time, 3dfx was over.
Best wishes.
False. The Voodoo 3 was highly succesful, sold in great numbers. And the TNT2 was clearly inferior to the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance, compatibility and image quality. The downfall of 3dfx came only in the year 2000 after the release of the Voodoo 5500 and 4500.
Are you American? they often have trouble with other heavy accents
Merry old London. At least I used to until recently.
TH-cam provides subtitles. Just turn it on.
@@BurningFlame1999
*_False. The Voodoo 3 was highly succesful, sold in great numbers. And the TNT2 was clearly inferior to the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance, compatibility and image quality. The downfall of 3dfx came only in the year 2000 after the release of the Voodoo 5500 and 4500._*
That is kind of right as I expressed poorly. So it is not right ha ha.
Knowing the future, the writing was on the wall already for 3dfx.
TNT and TNT2 were much more successful, they sold in much bigger numbers compared to 3dfx competitors.
Remember 3dfx alienated all the Taiwanese manufacturers like Asus, when they purchased STB and their business plan was fully producing the video card on themselves with zero or little production from other manufacturers. That level of vertical integration is an extremely difficult feat. Not even Intel or Amd could do it with mainboards up to today. Amd even outsourced CPU manufacturing!
TNT2 is a bit slower on some tests but cheaper and much easier to find as it was produced in much bigger quantities. Compatibility was excellent and video quality was good too. It was only missing proprietary Glide support which was already in decline with all the other proprietary 3d APIs. It had very good performance on the standards APIs Direct3d and OpenGL.
¿Bad performance? They released TNT2 ultra. ¿Too expensive? Use TNT2 M64.
Nvidia had a family of products, from very cheap to gamer / expensive. Voodoo 3 was a gamer specific expensive card mostly.
¿Compatibility? Nvidia had full OpenGL support, which was unheard of for a consumer card at the time and very good drivers. And new drivers were released constantly.
*_TNT2 was clearly inferior to the Voodoo 3 in terms of performance, compatibility and image quality_*
It was not clearly inferior at all. It was a close fight and Voodoo 3 loses on some items.
By that time Id software and Unreal 3d engines both had OpenGL support and they forecasted standard 3d API were the future. And Nvidia had very good support.
I think I would bought a TNT2 at the time. I'm no Nvidia/Ati/3dfx/etc. fan. I'm fan of my wallet ha.
Voodoo 3 was not scalable, so it kind of ended burying 3dfx.
Nvidia short release cycles were brutal for the time.
Best wishes.
It is a bit annoying this guy saying voodoo FREE, FREE D its THREEEEEEEE!!!!!! 3D. Can you say T? You can? WTF is FREE D? LOL
I'm glad you fancy my annoying accent :)
dude, too late.
retro scene already made 1000 reviews of this types.
Rather do old card that is not reviewed well.
I will not even watch it, as I am tired of these reviews, that swarmed youtube in last 5 years. They are all the same, same information, nothing new. I saw it 1000x times, why another 12 minutes video? Particulary voodoo2 and voodoo3 card is least card that need new review.
The Voodoo 3 has so many reviews because it was the best card on the market in early and mid 1999. Every gamer wanted one back then. Also the Voodoo 1 and 2 were the best of the best in 1996-1997 and 1998-1999 respectively.
@@BurningFlame1999 I know it, but I wont watch another same review, with same stuff, 90% stuff of these kind of videos are repeating. Always same story.
This is what I told, that new voodoo3 review is worthless.
@@warrax111 then why you did? Why you watched this one?
@@elektronischermeister I didn't watch it. I watch only first few seconds, maybe a half minute or minute, I dont remember that. And them I've realized, what I've written, like I'm wasting the time. All the same and same story again, what I saw milion times. Same quotes, same information, same benchmarks, same findings... nothing new.
So I've turned off video and written frustrated comments. Why to waste time to 1001th review of voodoo3, with 99% same informational value, when there are interesting cards not reviewed so much (for example S3 savage 3d)
@@warrax111 funny you say S3 Savage, because in that era I was using S3 Savage4 from 1999 to 2005. Years later I had the opportunity to use 3dfx Banshee and 3dfx Voodoo3. It was smoother and faster to use any of those 3dfx cards than my old S3 Savage4. The only nice thing about the Savage4 was S3TC textures: they were really amazing. But compatibility and speed the 3dfx was a better experience overall.