3D Image Quality Comparison

Image quality has always been 3dfx's downfall, dating back to the days of the original Voodoo accelerator, how have things changed? Let's do a head to head comparison of the Voodoo3 and a fair representative of the rest of the 3D accelerators out there, the ATI Rage 128 whose 3D image quality is truly top notch.

The top most image is taken from the ATI Rage 128, the bottom from the Voodoo3. Can you tell the difference between the two? Click each one to view a full sized uncompressed jpeg file (approx 900KB). During fast paced gameplay, the Voodoo3 is indiscernible from anything else.

Click to Enlarge (900KB)

Click to Enlarge (900KB)

Here we have the same comparison, ATI Rage 128 on top, and the Voodoo3 on the bottom. Notice any difference?

Click to Enlarge (900KB)

Click to Enlarge (900KB)

Then what is the difference between the Voodoo3 and the rest of the competition? Here is an illustration of the 256 x 256 texture limitation of the Voodoo3:

This is what the texture should look like
textures-ati.jpg (100937 bytes)

This is what the texture looks like on a 3dfx accelerator
/reviews/video/Voodoo3-Super7/textures-v3.jpg (87401 bytes)

The problem with 3dfx's 3D image quality? If you are the type of person that can't stand anything if it's not crisp and clear, then the Voodoo3 (along with the Voodoo2, Banshee, etc...) will definitely bother you. All other graphics accelerators have support for larger texture sizes, unfortunately 3dfx isn't one of them. In 3dfx's words, it's a small price to pay for performance. What matters the most to you?

Chipset Compatibility Comparison 3DNow! Support Comparison


View All Comments

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now