GF2 MX or VD 5 5500

[samuknow]

I have been contemplating buying a Leadteck GF 2 MX or VD 5 5500 for a while. I'm ready to step up to the plate here.
I want honest opinions and postable facts please. I will be purchasing one of these soon. I have read the reviews but not sure which are biased or not.
I know FPS belongs to the GF2 but at higher res the VD 5 closes the gap. I want to know about smoothness look feel all the good stuff. I play a lot of Q3 and UT and I know the VD5 card will rule in UT due to Glide. So give me your guts here.

PS. Shadow, I am leaning towards the VD 5500.....

[Pinky]

This debate is older than the threads themselves.

If only playing UT, go for the voodoo.

Anything else will require something else (I won't even say radeon, but that's a viable alternative, anything but voodoo).

Glad you're joining us in the 21st Century.

[samuknow]

Thanks for your help Pinky.......

But I do agree. I found a Leadtek GF2 for about 75.00 and a VD5 for a little more.

[harderclock]

when i owned a voodoo 5 i never had a problem playing any of my driving games with 2 samples anti alising games such as all the need for speeds all of the nascars including 4 and to many more to mention. never once did i ever have to set the card up for a specific game or have to tweak it in any way or overclock.i also owned the hercules prophet 2mx 32 meg and was very happy with the benchmarks and the overclockabillity it was a really good card and taught me a lot cause it always seemed to need some kind of setting up to get my driving games to run the way i was used to with the voodoo5.i guess it all depends on what you know and how much you want to spend and i dont think anyone out there should ever have anything bad to say about anything ever made by 3dfx except the fact that they closed their doors and no longer offer factory support.the support is still there if you look for it because of all the die hard voodoo fans that are still making drivers and tweaking programs for the card.and i wont get into the price of a voodoo5 lets just say im going to get another one very soon.

[samuknow]

Do you have any probs fitting that big honkin card in the case?

[harderclock]

i had to move my hard drive up to the top of the hidden bays to leave room for the voodoo 5 agp i only have a midtower.ill be the first to say its a rather large card

[el]

big honkin thing is pretty fecking big but not too big and l too like the card I think the v5 is a better choice of a G2 Ultra not the MX it isn't that great. what games do you play mostly?

[Nagorak]

There's nothing worse than the GF2 MX...I'd suggest a Radeon LE instead of both.

[samuknow]

I play a lot of Q3 and UT. I also like Q2 still. Plus I will be picking up Nascar4 soon.....

[jeff_harrison_344]

I say definately go with the Voodoo5, you will FALL IN LOVE with the FSAA.

[el]

If you play older games it really does shine with 2x or 4x fsaa but whatever you do don't get the MX.

[CSaddict]

Bah are you guys kiddin me? The Geforce card is more bang for the buck. Plus Nvidia will be around for driver updates!!!!

[samuknow]

CSaddict (Jun 29, 2001 08:10 a.m.):
Bah are you guys kiddin me? The Geforce card is more bang for the buck. Plus Nvidia will be around for driver updates!!!!

just a question, Have you ever used a VD 5 card?

[Pinky]

samuknow (Jun 29, 2001 08:25 a.m.):
CSaddict (Jun 29, 2001 08:10 a.m.):
Bah are you guys kiddin me? The Geforce card is more bang for the buck. Plus Nvidia will be around for driver updates!!!!

just a question, Have you ever used a VD 5 card?

I have, a voodoo 3 3000. Nice card, but nothing extraordinary. I 'upgraded' to my current geforce 2 MX and have no complaints, NONE!!

[samuknow]

I had the opportunity to use one when I built a machine for my boss. A 1 gig tbird on a kt7a board. It rocked in Q3 but I think I expected more. Maybe colors to be more vivid.
I have a friend that has the GF2 MX card just sitting. I might try it out and see what I think. I can't do a side by side comparison, but I should be able to tell if I like it more or less.

[el]

Nvidia owns the rights/source of the drivers so in truth it is Nvidia who will no longer allow new drivers cuz they won't release the source because they want you to upgrade.

[rashly]

ok, ive got a v5 and a p3 667. my friends got a gf2mx and a p3 933. my v5 is definately a better card. image quality is much better, and games run much better. we both play quake 3:urban terror and nolf. my v5 gets about 50 fps in q3 on 1024x768, 16bit, features up, and 2x fsaa. in nolf i use the same settings and it is highly playable.

now, u probably havent seen fsaa in action. its like giving steak to a dog. once he had that, he doesnt want to eat his dog food no more. it really is amazing.

now with a v5, the faster the cpu is, the better the v5 performs. it is a highly cpu dependent card. someone i talked to has a 1.4 tbird and he is just starting to see the v5 as the bottleneck.

now, arguments for the mx. the v5 will have no more driver support. if u plan on getting windows xp, it wont perform good. there is a way of getting drivers working for xp, but they suck.

i bought my v5 a year ago before 3dfx died for 225 off ebay and i havent regretted a day with it, but in a year, i think im gonna have to upgrade my good system and put the v5 in my ****ty system.

[samuknow]

Good input rashly

[el]

yup rashy you are right but you paid 225! ouch! I got in on a sweet deal posted by member mudguts and paid 112shipped for 2.

[rashly]

yeah, but at the time the list price for it was 300. now i could get it for like 90.

[Me]

el (Jun 29, 2001 07:58 a.m.):
If you play older games it really does shine with 2x or 4x fsaa but whatever you do don't get the MX.


I am thinking about buying a voodoo 5500 and i want to know what newer games out there that it might have problems with. Black&white maybe? I mostly play counter stirke and quake , unreal type games. I know baldurs gate is just 2d so would that run fine/???

[Me]

el (Jun 29, 2001 01:50 p.m.):
Nvidia owns the rights/source of the drivers so in truth it is Nvidia who will no longer allow new drivers cuz they won't release the source because they want you to upgrade.

It seems like if 3dfx was still out they would be the top notch video card. Nvidia just put the video card industry back about year

[rashly]

ive had no problem with black and white. runs fine.

black and white though... was awesome for a week. played nonstop. then i realized it really sucks and is a very boring game. plucking individual trees and wood miracles gets boring after a while. glad i just borrowed it, never bought it.

[Nagorak]

Me (Jul 01, 2001 04:48 p.m.):
el (Jun 29, 2001 01:50 p.m.):
Nvidia owns the rights/source of the drivers so in truth it is Nvidia who will no longer allow new drivers cuz they won't release the source because they want you to upgrade.

It seems like if 3dfx was still out they would be the top notch video card. Nvidia just put the video card industry back about year

I'm not sure this is 100% true. 3DFX went under because its offerings could not compete with Nvidia's (in speed). Its too bad they didn't manage to hold it together and release Rampage...that very well COULD have put the industry back greatly.

Oh well :-(

[samuknow]

I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

[samuknow]

I have a new part to this question.

Which one will handle being overclocked. I mean HIGH FSB.
And tweaking the core and mem clock on the card......

[el]

I think Nvidia is better at higher bus speeds and I agree that B&W kinda sucks :(

[dozier768]

heck i love my MX i never really cared for the voodoo cards and ive had em all. i have zero complaints about my mx and id only give it up for an ultra or a geforce3

[Nagorak]

samuknow (Jul 02, 2001 06:41 a.m.):
I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

Absolutely not. I agree with you 100% visual quality is very important, especially now that all cards are turning out several hundred FPS. Unfortunately all hardware review sites bother to test is FPS (probably because they like making pretty bar graphs). And it seems that's also all that many people think about.

[samuknow]

Nagorak (Jul 02, 2001 05:00 p.m.):
samuknow (Jul 02, 2001 06:41 a.m.):
I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

Absolutely not. I agree with you 100% visual quality is very important, especially now that all cards are turning out several hundred FPS. Unfortunately all hardware review sites bother to test is FPS (probably because they like making pretty bar graphs). And it seems that's also all that many people think about.

It seems so. I want the quality.

What do you mean by "Absolutely not"

[el nica]

Hey guys, where can you find a voodoo 5 5500 for $90.00?
The lowest I find in pricewatch is about $110.00

Thanks,

El Nica
If you play older games it really does shine with 2x or 4x fsaa but whatever you do don't get the MX.[/quote]


I am thinking about buying a voodoo 5500 and i want to know what newer games out there that it might have problems with. Black&white maybe? I mostly play counter stirke and quake , unreal type games. I know baldurs gate is just 2d so would that run fine/???[/quote]

[Pinky]

voodoo 5 (http://www.adamant.com/main.asp) for $89.00 plus shipping (listed as $9.00 on pricewatch). No tax, of course, unless you live in Ohio.

[Cowtown]

I really like my GF2 MX, I have no complaints on the visual quality or performance. The card overclocks well and for the money is great.

If you guys want to argue about visual quality then you really have to tip your hat to Radeon, it eats both the GF2MX and the 5500 for visual quality.

I have said it before and I will say it again, for my money I would buy a GF2 MX. If it weren't for ATI's still somewhat subpar drivers and a similar situation with the Kryo II, I would likey consider those cards. 3Dfx? No.

Shawn

[el nica]

Thanks, but that one is for a MAC!

El Nica
I really like my GF2 MX, I have no complaints on the visual quality or performance. The card overclocks well and for the money is great.

If you guys want to argue about visual quality then you really have to tip your hat to Radeon, it eats both the GF2MX and the 5500 for visual quality.

I have said it before and I will say it again, for my money I would buy a GF2 MX. If it weren't for ATI's still somewhat subpar drivers and a similar situation with the Kryo II, I would likey consider those cards. 3Dfx? No.

Shawn[/quote]

[el]

this thread will never die! what does nica mean? I think the V5 is a great which is better looking? 2d and 3d I think I would take a oldie but goodie over a crippled chip.

[dozier768]

samuknow (Jul 02, 2001 06:41 a.m.):
I agree the nVidia wins the FPS war. But do you think they are visually better. I mean after 80-100 FPS who cares? Movies run at about 26 FPS. so really anything around 50 will be more than enough. Especially at higher res. I really don't care if a card can run 140 FPS. I want To be dazzled.

i dont know if youve ever had your crosshairs on someone in UT tactical op's or CS and there is 22 people running around throwing flashbangs and smoke grenades 26 frames per second dosent cut it

[samuknow]

I realize that.... I was trying to make a point.

With either card you will never dip below the point where the action will become choppy. My TNT runs over 40 fps most of the time in heavy q3 traffic. I am just asking which one has the best eye appeal.

[rashly]

fps do help though. like dozier said, if u have 26 people runnign around u need them. this is my rule though. put the visual quality up as far as u can as long as the MINIMUM fps are over 30. i cant tell the difference in a screen running 30 and 110 so i crank the visuals up as high as i can. 1024x768, 16bit, 2xfsaa and i never dip below 30 in online play for q3: urban terror. average is about 50. and it looks great. whats the point of having 110 fps if visual quality sucks. u have the power, so use it. id much rather have minimum be 30 and have high quality.

[asmodean]

rashly, if visuals are important, stop using 16bit colors and use 32bits instead.

As I said in another thread conserning this same matter, V5 has better FSAA than GF2.

Voodoo is a dead card. Admit it, people. It will NOT stay usable for long, due to missing T&L unit. It doesn't even have full OpenGL support, yuck.

MX is crippled, yes. But try using a card with only 1 VSA100 chip... If something sucks, it's that. You need 2 of those chips to get acceptable performanence and double the memory too. SLI sucks. 3Dfx ever heard of shared memory?

For most bang for buck, go MX.
For visual quality, go Radeon.
For a mix between these, go Voodoo.

[samuknow]

Radeon gives you better visual than the other 2?

I do understand the moore FPS the better. There are always dips due to wide open areas, mutiple explosions. high quality settings and the such. I just know that neither card suffers from being slow.

[rashly]

i really cant tell much of a difference between 16 and 32 bit. the voodoos always had good 16 bit(its really 22 bit the way it renders) so i use 16 bit. it looks almost as good and the performance is worth it.

as for the radeon having the best visual quality, i dont think so. it does have the most vivid colors in 3d, but in 2d i like the v5 better. and the v5 has better quality in 3d because of fsaa. it really does make it look so much better.

and sli sucking is false. imagine 2 gf3s in sli. that **** would be crazy. and shared memory is almost the same as sli memory. each chip uses the same amout of memory so who caresif in a game if both chips use 14 megs of shared memory or 7 megs each of sli memory.

as for the v5 being a dead card, well, in a year and a half it will be. it wont be dead, but it will be like the v3. people will still use it to run old games and new games at low quality. for now though ive had no trouble running any games so i dont see how u consider it dead. and it doesnt fully support ogl? ive had no problem in any ogl games ive played. i know there was a problems in a couple of games like tribes 2 but all it takes is a little inf modifying to get rid of.

[asmodean]

Not private shared memory, but common shared memory. That SLI has different texture memories for each chip, which all contain the same data. Waste of memory, I think. Like that 64 megs in V5500. If using shared memory, 32 megs would be enough.

I'll drop GeForce as soon as nVidia starts using SLI, memory is too pricy in vid cards to be doubled with the effective amount of memory staying the same old. If the price drops, then it doesn't matter that much.

Try running 3D Max for instance with OpenGL, V5 & Antialiasing. The lines get too thick. Not compliant. It's the miniGL which is used with games, not an ICD one. Unless it has been changed, but I've not heard/read anything about such thing.

[rashly]

yeah, ur right about them sharing the same textures, i didnt think about that. but i think 32 megs is fine anyway. the only thing ur gonna need the more memory for is higher esolutions and better textures.even afetr that not so much is used up so throw in 2xfsaa and it about maxes out. the vsa100s were designed for 32 each chip so really meory size isnt the bottle neck, its more about bandwith. i wish they used ddr instead of sdram.

[Cowtown]

They way you guys go on about the Voodoo 5500 is that it is the only card that has 2x FSAA! The Radeon supports this and doesn't take a very bad performance hit as well. Add in HyperZ to clean the image up and yes the Radeon kicks monkey lovin ass on the other cards.

[samuknow]

rashly (Jul 03, 2001 12:03 a.m.):
fps do help though. like dozier said, if u have 26 people runnign around u need them. this is my rule though. put the visual quality up as far as u can as long as the MINIMUM fps are over 30. i cant tell the difference in a screen running 30 and 110 so i crank the visuals up as high as i can. 1024x768, 16bit, 2xfsaa and i never dip below 30 in online play for q3: urban terror. average is about 50. and it looks great. whats the point of having 110 fps if visual quality sucks. u have the power, so use it. id much rather have minimum be 30 and have high quality.


This is exactly what I am talking about. QUALITY. I know that both cards will keep me over 30+ FPS at high quality settings. But which looks better there???????????????????? That IS the question.....
This may not be answered here....

Hey Shadow. Didn't you recently trade the VD5 for a GF card? Share your wisdome......

[el]

rashly (Jul 03, 2001 01:59 p.m.):
yeah, ur right about them sharing the same textures, i didnt think about that. but i think 32 megs is fine anyway. the only thing ur gonna need the more memory for is higher esolutions and better textures.even afetr that not so much is used up so throw in 2xfsaa and it about maxes out. the vsa100s were designed for 32 each chip so really meory size isnt the bottle neck, its more about bandwith. i wish they used ddr instead of sdram.
me too! I wish it had ddr instead of 6ns sdram!

ATI can't really compete with the v5 in price haven't seen them in the 85dollar range.

[spacetwinke]

GET RADDEON!!!!!
Though the 5500 is a nice card and will shine with your older games nothing matches the raddeons color its beuatiful!!!!
but to answer your question the voodoo 5500 is a steal
for the $$$ but i would invest a little more and go raddeon.
MX thumbs down

[rashly]

Cowtown (Jul 03, 2001 02:11 p.m.):
They way you guys go on about the Voodoo 5500 is that it is the only card that has 2x FSAA! The Radeon supports this and doesn't take a very bad performance hit as well. Add in HyperZ to clean the image up and yes the Radeon kicks monkey lovin ass on the other cards.

the radeon and the gf2 both have fsaa. but the gf2 fsaa takes a huge performance hit. the hit with the v5 isnt that bad. its about 10fps for me in quake 3. i dont know much about the radeons fsaa though, i would imagine it uses a similar technique as the gf2 by drawing the screen at a higher resolution and then bringing it down. i think its called supersampling.

and im not one of those voodoo zombies that think 3dfx **** will always be the best. the other 2 are great cards. im just sick of people saying that the v5 sucks.

if i were to buy a card right now i would get the radeon 64 ddr vivo cause it is an awsome card for a good price. i wouldnt get the gf2s or gf3s because i feel they are overpriced and the radeon i would like better. my next card though will probably be the radeon 2. that looks sweet.

[asmodean]

GF2 renders the screen at higher res, scaling it down. Not supersampling. GF3 uses supersampling. I don't remember how supersampling works, otherwise I could prolly tell the way it works.

[rashly]

yeah, then the gf2 one is multisampling i think. the higher res and then scales down. the v5 just drwas the screan then 'jitters' it to the sides and up and down and then comes up with an image.