Voodoo 4 wins from the performance perspective - but combined with a lower CPU it may be a match.

The clear advantages are that V4 support Glide / 32 bits and AA 2x and overall a faster and newer chipset
For G400max is the quality of the image, the fast ramdac of Matrox cards (and amazing 2d quality) is almost "legendary" 😀

PS: this is just a personal opinion 😀 at the end of the day both are interesting pieces of hardware and if you have the V4 PCI version you can even combine them and get the best out of the 2 worlds 😀 - good luck 😀
later edit: I just remembered - if I am not mistaken too much G400max was contemporary with V3 series and was "beaten" even by V3 3000 (not to mention V3 3500)

I'm thinking that the G400 Max may have a slight edge in D3D performance, it's certainly faster than a Voodoo3 3500. It's OpenGL performance however will be far worse, not to mention that the Voodoo 4 will also have Glide support. Compatibility wise, the V4 may be a little better, however the V3 is usually the better choice if you're aiming for compatibility.

I do have a voodoo3, so it's not worth to upgrade to a voodoo4 correct?

I was thinking on upgrading my voodoo3 3000 , for a tn2ultra a voodoo4 or a g400max, from these , but I see that tendencies go towards the voodoo3 3000/3500.
So you think it's better to keep my voodoo3?

I can only refer to the tests that Phil did on Voodoo cards. V4 beats V3-3000 and V3-3500 beats V4.
Number are close though.

http://www.philscomputerlab.com/3dfx-voodoo-s … ut-project.html

Considering that you allready have a V3-3000, it would not hurt to get the Matrox.
Just to play around with in 32bit colors.

TNT2 Ultra is another choice to go for, yes. I kind of REALLY like my 32mb Ultra.
And I like having TNT2-Ultra, G400 and V3-3500 in my collection.
All three cards runs well on K6-III's/P-III-500 and up.

My take:

Matrox G400 max is a good card. Image Quality is top notch, and it works very well with DirectX games. Highlight of the Matrox cards are exclusive support for Environment Mapped Bump Mapping. There are often patches you need to install to get this going, but when you do, the results are beautiful:

OpenGL was a challenge back in the day, it took Matrox a long time to have drivers. But we now have the benefit of using the latest, which work better.

Still, the Voodoo was THE gamers card. Every game developer made sure to test their games with a Voodoo. So you will find a Voodoo to just work with pretty much every game.

The V4 is special because it's one of the few Voodoo cards that can work in modern motherboards (Voltage requirement). In terms of performance, it's a bit of a disappointment though. If you have a V3, it's not much of an upgrade. But it does do 32 bit colour and great Image Quality.

So once again it depends on what games you play. EMBM support is likely to be the deciding factor. It's a unique feature and really cool to see it in action.

philscomputerlab wrote:

Highlight of the Matrox cards are exclusive support for Environment Mapped Bump Mapping.

To be more precise - DX6 EMBM. Later cards can use bump mapping but with different methods.

Gamecollector wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

Highlight of the Matrox cards are exclusive support for Environment Mapped Bump Mapping.

To be more precise - DX6 EMBM. Later cards can use bump mapping but with different methods.

Thank you for clarifying. I always forget to mention that 😀

I've tested these cards in a benchmark from a racegame and in 3dmark99 max. I did not test the g400max but just the normal g400.

On a k6-2 450 the v4 is a bit faster but tnt2 ultra and g400 are really close (these three were faster than far newer cards, i tested 20+ cards.
On a p2-450 the g400 was the fastest but again, they were close.
From 666mhz p3 and up the tnt2 ultra was the card that kept on scaling so it won from there but only with a slight margin.

These cards are about equal. The v4 was up against the geforce2mx and lost (big time), it is perfectly capable to keep up with tnt2 ultra.

So you want direct3d and 32bit color? I would pick the tnt2ultra (g400 for slower systems)
You want Glide support,32 bit color and 2xAA support? Voodoo4 is your card.
Care about glide but don't care about 32bit color or AA? Keep the voodoo3.

Voodoo1 and 2 are the most compatible glide cards, the v3 is next in line but can't run a few older glide games. The voodoo4 is less compatible and can only run the later glide games.

wouldn't an OC voodoo4 beat the voodoo3 3500 and support 32bit? I think I will stick with my voodoo3 then. Matrox has the pic quality, so maybe i will get it.

V4 stock is about equal to v3 3500, depends on the game, but they are pretty close.

image quality of the matrox is great but very overrated imho, i don't see the difference between the v3 and the matrox. G400 is still a good card. G450 and 550 are slower.

meljor wrote:

V4 stock is about equal to v3 3500, depends on the game, but they are pretty close.

image quality of the matrox is great but very overrated imho, i don't see the difference between the v3 and the matrox. G400 is still a good card. G450 and 550 are slower.

That's because with V3, 3dfx also had amazing imaga quality 😀

It's very odd that a lot of the later Matrox cards are actually slower. The G400 max is one of the fastest Matroc cards. Later cards do offer DVI, like on the 550, which can be of interest.

Yes, matrox dropped the ball and that was a shame, they simply gave up. Comparing my g400 with the g450: Both bottlenecked by a p2-450 and k6-2 450 they are about equal (g400 a bit faster). When comparing them on a tualatin p3-1400 the g400 is almost 50% faster! So the g400max will be even faster. G550 was also dog slow and i threw the card out, as i would never use it anyway.

Gamecollector wrote:

To be more precise - DX6 EMBM. Later cards can use bump mapping but with different methods.

That is correct.
In DX7 DOT3 bumpmapping was introduced, and first supported by the GeForce256 if I'm not mistaken.
This is a mathematically more correct way, since it is effectively the basis of per-pixel lighting: calculating a dot-product between a light-vector and a normal-vector at every pixel.
The GeForce256 did not support EMBM, and I'm not sure if any GeForce card ever did, to be honest.
Radeons from that era supported botw EMBM and DOT3 if I recall correctly.

EMBM is a technique that basically displaces texture coordinates for a lightmap (environment-map), so it is a 2d approximation of lighting. It was very popular with software rendering, as it is a very efficient way to get bumpmapping and specular highlights. The results can be quite good, but since it is image-based rather than vector-based, it can be rather limited, especially if you want dynamic lightsources.

Hmm...
Well, one of my videocards was Ati Rage 128 Pro (OEM version, Rage 128 Ultra IIRC). And there was a tech demo... IIRC it used sort of advanced mapping but I don't remember details.
Ok, found the demo. Rage Dawning.
Well, the demo don't like WinXp or Radeons.

Scali wrote:

The GeForce256 did not support EMBM, and I'm not sure if any GeForce card ever did, to be honest.
Radeons from that era supported botw EMBM and DOT3 if I recall correctly.

Radeon, Kyro, and GeForce 3.

brostenen wrote:

I can only refer to the tests that Phil did on Voodoo cards. V4 beats V3-3000 and V3-3500 beats V4. Number are close though. […]
Show full quote

I can only refer to the tests that Phil did on Voodoo cards. V4 beats V3-3000 and V3-3500 beats V4.
Number are close though.

http://www.philscomputerlab.com/3dfx-voodoo-s … ut-project.html

Considering that you allready have a V3-3000, it would not hurt to get the Matrox.
Just to play around with in 32bit colors.

TNT2 Ultra is another choice to go for, yes. I kind of REALLY like my 32mb Ultra.
And I like having TNT2-Ultra, G400 and V3-3500 in my collection.
All three cards runs well on K6-III's/P-III-500 and up.

You're assuming that someone with a V4 would run it in 16-bit color instead of 32-bit. One of the reasons for even owning a V4/V5 is the ability to run games in 32-bit color. As soon as you increase the color depth, the V3 3500 drops out because it can't do 32-bit color at all.

sliderider wrote:

brostenen wrote:

I can only refer to the tests that Phil did on Voodoo cards. V4 beats V3-3000 and V3-3500 beats V4. Number are close though. […]
Show full quote

I can only refer to the tests that Phil did on Voodoo cards. V4 beats V3-3000 and V3-3500 beats V4.
Number are close though.

http://www.philscomputerlab.com/3dfx-voodoo-s … ut-project.html

Considering that you allready have a V3-3000, it would not hurt to get the Matrox.
Just to play around with in 32bit colors.

TNT2 Ultra is another choice to go for, yes. I kind of REALLY like my 32mb Ultra.
And I like having TNT2-Ultra, G400 and V3-3500 in my collection.
All three cards runs well on K6-III's/P-III-500 and up.

You're assuming that someone with a V4 would run it in 16-bit color instead of 32-bit. One of the reasons for even owning a V4/V5 is the ability to run games in 32-bit color. As soon as you increase the color depth, the V3 3500 drops out because it can't do 32-bit color at all.

Yeah... My mistake.
It's really been a while since I looked at specs on the V4. So it must have slipped my mind, and I must have mixed things up a bit.
On the other hand. I know the V4 is not really the performer most people wanted it to be.
I will allways choose TNT2 Ultra and G400 over the V4 any day. The V4 is a must to have, if one should collect 3DfX hardware though.

True, but you also need to consider that the V3 is unique, and not a "real" 16 bit card. I'm referring to the "22 bit" equivalent quality. Makes this whole topic a lot more subjective. I certainly didn't really see a difference when comparing a V3 with a V5 in 32 bit.