VOGONS


Reply 40 of 113, by jheronimus

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I actually really like my MX460 from MSI. AFAIK it's the fastest DX7 card and it seems to be quieter and cooler than most real GF4 cards. Also supposedly NVIDIA cards have better DOS compatibility than Radeons. Yeah, you miss out on some titles, but generally those would be better served by a faster system overall (my system is running a Tualatin).

And yeah, you don't get a Voodoo 5 because it's a fast early 2000s card — it's not. You get if you need to play Glide games at 1600x1200 and/or with additional effects (AA, etc). Glide wasn't essential in early 2000s, so we're mostly talking about late 90s games here.

MR BIOS upgrades catalog
Unicore Award upgrades catalog

Reply 41 of 113, by Stryker1996

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
jheronimus wrote on 2022-06-14, 10:59:

I actually really like my MX460 from MSI.

I wouldn't trust anything that has mx on it because I have a geforce 2 mx 400 and it has about 10 fps on quake 3

Reply 42 of 113, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
jheronimus wrote on 2022-06-14, 10:59:

I actually really like my MX460 from MSI. AFAIK it's the fastest DX7 card and it seems to be quieter and cooler than most real GF4 cards. Also supposedly NVIDIA cards have better DOS compatibility than Radeons. Yeah, you miss out on some titles, but generally those would be better served by a faster system overall (my system is running a Tualatin).

And yeah, you don't get a Voodoo 5 because it's a fast early 2000s card — it's not. You get if you need to play Glide games at 1600x1200 and/or with additional effects (AA, etc). Glide wasn't essential in early 2000s, so we're mostly talking about late 90s games here.

I believe Radeon 7500 is a faster DX7 card that MX440, maybe even faster than MX460. I can't seem to find any quick benchmark charts to make sure though.

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 43 of 113, by kitten.may.cry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
appiah4 wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:09:
jheronimus wrote on 2022-06-14, 10:59:

I actually really like my MX460 from MSI. AFAIK it's the fastest DX7 card and it seems to be quieter and cooler than most real GF4 cards. Also supposedly NVIDIA cards have better DOS compatibility than Radeons. Yeah, you miss out on some titles, but generally those would be better served by a faster system overall (my system is running a Tualatin).

And yeah, you don't get a Voodoo 5 because it's a fast early 2000s card — it's not. You get if you need to play Glide games at 1600x1200 and/or with additional effects (AA, etc). Glide wasn't essential in early 2000s, so we're mostly talking about late 90s games here.

I believe Radeon 7500 is a faster DX7 card that MX440, maybe even faster than MX460. I can't seem to find any quick benchmark charts to make sure though.

Can't find one? Run your own, would make for a fun thread.

Reply 44 of 113, by appiah4

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:11:
appiah4 wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:09:
jheronimus wrote on 2022-06-14, 10:59:

I actually really like my MX460 from MSI. AFAIK it's the fastest DX7 card and it seems to be quieter and cooler than most real GF4 cards. Also supposedly NVIDIA cards have better DOS compatibility than Radeons. Yeah, you miss out on some titles, but generally those would be better served by a faster system overall (my system is running a Tualatin).

And yeah, you don't get a Voodoo 5 because it's a fast early 2000s card — it's not. You get if you need to play Glide games at 1600x1200 and/or with additional effects (AA, etc). Glide wasn't essential in early 2000s, so we're mostly talking about late 90s games here.

I believe Radeon 7500 is a faster DX7 card that MX440, maybe even faster than MX460. I can't seem to find any quick benchmark charts to make sure though.

Can't find one? Run your own, would make for a fun thread.

I do not own an MX460, only an MX440 I'm afraid. And the only Radeon 7500 I have is the PCI version from an HP AlphaStation which sells for hundreds to thousands of dollars on eBay apparently..

Retronautics: A digital gallery of my retro computers, hardware and projects.

Reply 45 of 113, by kitten.may.cry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
appiah4 wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:12:
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:11:
appiah4 wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:09:

I believe Radeon 7500 is a faster DX7 card that MX440, maybe even faster than MX460. I can't seem to find any quick benchmark charts to make sure though.

Can't find one? Run your own, would make for a fun thread.

I do not own an MX460, only an MX440 I'm afraid. And the only Radeon 7500 I have is the PCI version from an HP AlphaStation which sells for hundreds to thousands of dollars on eBay apparently..

7500 PCI... sheesh, man.

Reply 47 of 113, by kitten.may.cry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:31:

Did 3dfx actually make the Spectre 3000

If pictures of the bloody thing exist, probably.

It does look extra nice, though.

Reply 48 of 113, by Stryker1996

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:41:
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:31:

Did 3dfx actually make the Spectre 3000

If pictures of the bloody thing exist, probably.

It does look extra nice, though.

Idk how much better it would be, but I know it has ddr instead of sdr

Reply 49 of 113, by kitten.may.cry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:44:
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:41:
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:31:

Did 3dfx actually make the Spectre 3000

If pictures of the bloody thing exist, probably.

It does look extra nice, though.

Idk how much better it would be, but I know it has ddr instead of sdr

This thing would easily destroy GeForce2 GTS, if the specs are anything to go by.

Closing on GeForce3, perhaps?

Reply 50 of 113, by Stryker1996

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:46:
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:44:
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:41:

If pictures of the bloody thing exist, probably.

It does look extra nice, though.

Idk how much better it would be, but I know it has ddr instead of sdr

This thing would easily destroy GeForce2 GTS, if the specs are anything to go by.

Closing on GeForce3, perhaps?

I think the Geforce3's 57 million transistors, with a 230 mhz memory clock would definitely beat the Spectre 3000

Reply 51 of 113, by kitten.may.cry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:52:
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:46:
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:44:

Idk how much better it would be, but I know it has ddr instead of sdr

This thing would easily destroy GeForce2 GTS, if the specs are anything to go by.

Closing on GeForce3, perhaps?

I think the Geforce3's 57 million transistors, with a 230 mhz memory clock would definitely beat the Spectre 3000

You definitely ARE 3dfx fanboy, I can't argue with facts and logic.

Reply 52 of 113, by Stryker1996

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:54:
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:52:
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:46:

This thing would easily destroy GeForce2 GTS, if the specs are anything to go by.

Closing on GeForce3, perhaps?

I think the Geforce3's 57 million transistors, with a 230 mhz memory clock would definitely beat the Spectre 3000

You definitely ARE 3dfx fanboy, I can't argue with facts and logic.

Well to me I think that going above any 3dfx card would be overkill, it's like with processors, you would rather use a pentium 3 than a core 2 duo.

Reply 53 of 113, by kitten.may.cry

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 15:08:
kitten.may.cry wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:54:
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 14:52:

I think the Geforce3's 57 million transistors, with a 230 mhz memory clock would definitely beat the Spectre 3000

You definitely ARE 3dfx fanboy, I can't argue with facts and logic.

Well to me I think that going above any 3dfx card would be overkill, it's like with processors, you would rather use a pentium 3 than a core 2 duo.

P3 over C2D, it depends, really.

You're not wrong, though.

Reply 55 of 113, by Joseph_Joestar

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 15:08:

Well to me I think that going above any 3dfx card would be overkill, it's like with processors, you would rather use a pentium 3 than a core 2 duo.

It depends on how you want to play Win9x era games and how you define that period. Personally, I consider Windows games released from 1996 up to (and including) 2001 as the Win9x era. Other people might have different views.

As to how you want to play these games, some folks like to use a CRT monitor and play at the period correct resolutions e.g. 1024x768 and below. Others prefer to run Win9x games at 1600x1200 with AA and AF fully maxed out at 60+ FPS. In the latter case, you need something like a Radeon X850 to play some of the more demanding 2001 games like Max Payne at those settings. But if you stick to period correct resolutions, and don't mind if a few of the later games drop below 60 FPS, even a Voodoo3 will be enough.

It's similar with the CPU choice. A Pentium 3 Coppermine at 1 GHz will run most Win9x era games very smoothly. But there are a few genuinely CPU demanding titles out there (such as the original Deus Ex) which may struggle to reach 60 FPS on that setup. This is why some people go with a high-end Pentium 4 or Athlon 64 system.

PC#1: Pentium MMX 166 / Soyo SY-5BT / S3 Trio64V+ / Voodoo1 / OPTi 82C930 / AWE64 Gold / SC-155
PC#2: AthlonXP 1700+ / Abit KT7A / Voodoo3 / Audigy1 / Vortex2
PC#3: Athlon64 3400+ / Asus K8V-MX / 5900XT / Audigy1
PC#4: i5-3550P / MSI Z77A-G43 / GTX 650Ti / X-Fi

Reply 57 of 113, by bloodem

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Stryker1996 wrote on 2022-06-14, 11:08:

I wouldn't trust anything that has mx on it because I have a geforce 2 mx 400 and it has about 10 fps on quake 3

A real GeForce 2 MX/MX400 can sustain 60+ FPS in Quake 3 @ 1024 x 768 x 32.
And even the ‘fake’ GeForce 2 MX400 cards (the ones with half the memory bandwidth, which are actually GeForce 2 MX200 in disguise), even those should handle 60+ FPS at lower resolutions/color depth.

So don’t blame the GeForce 2 MX400, something else is going on that tanks the FPS in your case.😀

2 x PGA132 / 5 x Socket 3 / 9 x Socket 7 / 12 x SS7 / 1 x Socket 8 / 14 x Slot 1 / 5 x Slot A
5 x Socket 370 / 8 x Socket A / 2 x Socket 478 / 2 x Socket 754 / 3 x Socket 939 / 7 x LGA775 / 1 x LGA1155
Current rig: Ryzen 5 3600X
Backup rig: Core i7 7700k

Reply 58 of 113, by matze79

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
imi wrote on 2022-06-12, 17:25:
Geforce 4, Radeon 9700 […]
Show full quote

Geforce 4, Radeon 9700

even a geforce 2 is faster than a V5 6000, there's no reason to get one apart from a collectable standpoint and historical reasons :p
and simple answer is, you can't.
it's a highly collectible card that was never released retail and trades for immense sums, you can get a reproduction made in russia though and even that will cost you like over $1k

Pretty sure you wouldnt get a card from russia now easily.

Well the 3Dfx V5 6000 was superior in AA at its time.
But for Real World Gaming i would rather use a GeForce 4.

https://dosreloaded.de - The German Retro DOS PC Community
https://www.retroianer.de - under constructing since ever

Co2 - for a endless Summer

Reply 59 of 113, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Their supersampling has such a huge performance hit. At 4X AA on the 6000 you may be limited to 1024x768 with even 1998-1999 games to keep the framerate high. And since it's 32MB effective, I wonder if memory consumption might be a problem and you might get some additional stuttering.

To me, GeForce3+'s Quincunx at very high resolutions is more useful than what Voodoo5 could do most of the time.

Though I dig figure out how to get Voodoo5 5500 to run some DOS Glide games with 4X FSAA. That is really nice.