You aren't short on shitty 3D accelerators from 1996-1998; the good stuff was 3dfx and then eventually you had the Riva TNT.

Yeah, I had a Diamond Stealth II G460 back in 1999. It was an 8MB AGP card using the Intel i740 graphics chip. It was pretty good considering it was the FIRST 3D card I ever had, but now that I have the Voodoo2 cards and a TNT2 32MB AGP card, I can see how the performance kings compared.

The Voodoo Rush all of them are on PCI slot, meaning they are very very compatible with even today systems if the mobo have PCI slot, they are also way easy to find compared to other Voodoo cards, and way more affordable then Voodoo 2 and Voodoo 3, not to even mention the Voodoo 5, also Rush will take only one PCI slot and will have 2D as well, while Voodoo 1 and Voodoo 2 will need cable and some 2D card. Also many of the Voodoo 3 are AGP based and most V5 are also AGP, the PCI versions are very rare, so this is the thing with Voodoo Rush having not much alternatives. The Voodoo Banshee is better alternative, but most of them are also AGP based... the Voodoo 3 3500 is way better but if it is PCI one, and they are hard to find/get...

So i don`t see what is the fun about the V Rush, as it was the first 2D/3D card from 3Dfx in one card, it was on PCI slot not AGP is easy to find it, and it will cost lesser then V2 SLi or Voodoo 3...... Voodoo 2 SLI is superior on 3D, but does not have 2D on them, also they need x2 cables and dedicated 2D card, while the Rush does not, and for the Voodoo 3 they don`t have much PCI versions, and the Voodoo 5 5500 is expensive is hard to get, and most of the time the card is AGP version, that comes with tons of requirements on motherboard side....

Biggest problem with Voodoo Rush was 3Dfx did good job on adding 2D chip on the same card, but they did fail on the 3D part, where they did need to make bigger card like the Voodoo 5 6000, at least x2 more chips for the 3D making total of 4 3D chips...

Rush is:

1. slower than V1
2. not compatible with those "V1 only games"
3. poor 2D chip quality and thus image quality
4. running very hot
5. compatibility issues in newer systems (just like V1)... difficult to run it realiably on anything past PII.

So all in all - Rush is by far the worst 3dfx card ever made. No point in defending it.

..has no win3x drivers either?

Running hot, so the Voodoo 1, Voodoo 2, Voodoo 3, Voodoo 5, Voodoo Banshee are not running hot as stove, is that what you want to say ?
Poor or not poor 2D is still there, no need of dedicated 2D card and cable to connect the 3D and the 2D card (the case of Voodoo 1 and Voodoo 2)....

V1 and V2 are actually running cooler than Rush.... while being faster. Poor 2D which can't be replaced by something else is a problem of course. 😒
V1/2 are much better in this aspect as they allow user to use exactly the 2D core that suits ther needs the best - ATi, S3, Matrox, Trident, anything. As a matter of fact even 3D card can be used as a primary for running D3D and OGL games, while Voodoo will run Glide.

So is two slots occupied by superior graphic solution + pass-thru cable really so much worse than single slot crappy 2D/3D Rush? I don't think so.
Anyway it seems your purpose here on Vogons is purely trolling, not producing something constructive. 😵

Nah, just like all the other graphics cards including the Banshee from that era, absolutely wouldn't recommend the Voodoo Rush for anything when you have better options. Was a little different back at the end of the 90's, when you soon got used ones for nothing. Rarer and costs more than a Voodoo2/3 now, which are both just better.

I have Voodoo 1 and Voodoo 2 and Rush i know they are all stoves, as the whole 3Dfx line up is a stove running very hot, so that point suck..
And while using that it will take more space inside the case, and more slots as well, that can be used for something else..

And your purpose here seems, to be show of of that gallery of yours, and using 2018 computer parts to play games from the 80`s and 90`s, that other people will have dedicated original systems for, not cheating with newer ones, and showing off no skill..

Radical Vision wrote:

And your purpose here seems, to be show of of that gallery of yours, and using 2018 computer parts to play games from the 80`s and 90`s, that other people will have dedicated original systems for, not cheating with newer ones, and showing off no skill..

And your purpose here seems, to parrot what a youtuber (probably LGR) said, attempting to enlighten us with common knowledge trying hard to find egotistical footing.

Many of us moved on from 3dfx including from before the closure. Some of us nostalgic about 3dfx don't want to be associated with it due to the behavior exhibited.

Radical Vision wrote:

I have Voodoo 1 and Voodoo 2 and Rush i know they are all stoves, as the whole 3Dfx line up is a stove running very hot, so that point suck..
And while using that it will take more space inside the case, and more slots as well, that can be used for something else..

And your purpose here seems, to be show of of that gallery of yours, and using 2018 computer parts to play games from the 80`s and 90`s, that other people will have dedicated original systems for, not cheating with newer ones, and showing off no skill..

Running hotter then the V1 + having worse performance is a good point. Just because you find that everything is running hot you dismiss the whole argument. And if you are concerned with slots inside your system, most likely the pci slots seeing the discussions goes mainly over V1 and rush, then you can best look for a higher end solution... but wait.. you are just telling everybody is mad because they use newer parts to run older systems better..
So what point are you trying to make outside trolling around here?

On a side note, the rush does have lots of compatability problems, the reason I rarely use min anymore. The different 2D cores on the Rush make the story even worse, one has even problems running correctly on mainboards due to compatibility problems.
And the prices for the Voodoo Rush are equal, and in case of the 8mb versions even way higher then the V3/Banshees.

Any period correct system does run using a V1 with onboard graphics or a seperate 2D card with most games whereas a Rush will not run well on the system or not all games will run well on the system. All in all enough reasons not to use the Rush together with the arguments of the other people above.

On the same critical token, V1's are a compromise on image quality compared to V2/3/4/5 with their sole strength in that handful of games that have serious compatibility issues with better cards.

I've a question that's been bugging me for awhile...

I have a K6-2 300mhz system with a Voodoo 3 (PCI) in it. I also have a Voodoo 2 accelerator card sitting in a box in my closet.

Would it be possible to connect these two via SLI, and if so, would there be any real benefit to doing so?

in short: NO

firage wrote:

On the same critical token, V1's are a compromise on image quality compared to V2/3/4/5 with their sole strength in that handful of games that have serious compatibility issues with better cards.

That is true, there is a clear difference between a V1 and V2 or higher Voodoo card. Both V1 and V2 also relied on a good companion card to make sure the image remains clear on the monitor.

Nvm1 wrote:

Both V1 and V2 also relied on a good companion card to make sure the image remains clear on the monitor.

And don't forget about pass-through cable. There were vast quality differences between those.

Srandista wrote:

Nvm1 wrote:

Both V1 and V2 also relied on a good companion card to make sure the image remains clear on the monitor.

And don't forget about pass-through cable. There were vast quality differences between those.

That would be interesting: https://translate.google.at/translate?hl=de&s … Floopback_f.htm

The fact that even the Voodoo 3 doesn't support the OpenGL combiner extension has led me to believe that this is Id Software's rationale for using the ubiquitously-supported feature of manipulating video brightness for the purpose of widening the dynamic range in Quake 3, at the cost of colour precision and information, rather than using the OpenGL scale function to enable rich lighting with no sacrifices. It seems like this is still true in Quake Live to this day.
Poor NVIDIA and their underutilized twin texel engine.

Q3's renderer doesn't have enough room in its state management to sneak in a combine op for lit stuff. Also, changing the brightness is effectively free and for 1999 you'll have to take what you can get

Remember that Q3's appearance is intended to have feature parity on a GL 1.1 base level without any extensions

leileilol wrote:

Remember that Q3's appearance is intended to have feature parity on a GL 1.1 base level without any extensions

Doesn't the brightness control essentially count as an extension, though? I don't think it was supported on Windows NT at the time.