A great video🤩. For me Voodoo3 2000 for life, two years older, same FPS and higher quality in the optimized titles of that period. the voodoo3s were the best 3dfx ever produced i think, a relatively affordable card like the 2000 allows you to play everything without fear and take advantage of older titles with the dedicated glide libraries.
Thank you! Surprisingly the 2 year older mid-range Voodoo 3 2000 is overall clearly faster than the low-end 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200. In many games their performance is very very similar but in glide games the Voodoo 3 2000 is significantly faster as can be seen in Unreal and Deus Ex and even in some Direct3D games. I remember back in 2001 or 2002 I had a Voodoo 3 2000 and I purchased a new generation Geforce 2 MX (or so I thought), praised by all PC magazines of that time, and to my surprise it had the same performance as my much older Voodoo 3 2000 and was even slower in Glide games. I was very annoyed and did not understand why my Geforce 2 MX is so slow. Only later did I understood that I actually purchased a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200, not the standard 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. Unfortunately back then I did not understand the difference between the 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 and the regular 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. And many people did the same mistake as me, purchasing a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 believing that its the same as a regular Geforce 2 MX.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 I got voodoo3 in march 2000, next year i switched to geforce 2 mx just 64 bit in my favorite titles like Unreal in fact that was a downgrade😅
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 was fortunate enough to live through it and couldn't agree more. We had so much innovation so fast before things dropped off post-2013. It's a shame younger gamers will never know that experience and get the Micro-Transaction generic boring games.
Thank you! Back in the year 2000 I had a Voodoo 3 2000 and in 2002 I wanted to get a Geforce 2 MX because all reviews from that time showed that it is significatly faster than a V3 2000. After I got one I was shocked to see that it had a very similar performace to my V3 2000 in most games and was even slower in Glide games. I didn't understand why my Geforce 2 MX is so slow. After reading on the internet and PC magazines, I finally understood what was the problem. I purchased a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200, not knowing that this version is much slower than the 128-bit version. And many of my friends and colleagues did the same mistake, also purchasing 64-bit Geforce 2 MX's, not knowing the difference.
I had both cards back in those days, when I changed my Voodoo3 2000 for the Geforce2 MX I noticed that for those games that I could turn the 3dfx Glide on, the Voodoo would still run faster sometimes.
Unreal Engine 1 games were optimised for 3dfx GLIDE API, so that's why nvidia GF2MX is much slower in this deus ex benchmark. A few years later, however, modders have rebuilt the D3D renderer for most UE1 games, so that performance on nvidia GPUs has been greatly improved. Thanks to enhanced D3D renderer I played UE1 games on my Geforce 3 at 1280x1024x32 without any performance problems. I'm sure that the results of the Geforce2MX would also skyrocket in this deus ex benchmark if only an improved d3d renderer were to be used.
This is the official version of Deus Ex. In almost all Unreal engine games the Voodoo 3 3500 is 10-20% faster then a Geforce 2 MX 128-bit, not only in Deus Ex. The Unreal 1 engine was optimised for 3dfx card. In Glide games the V3 3500 often manages to beat the GF 2 MX 128-bit or to be at the same level. The GF 2 MX 128-bit on the other hand is significantly faster in practically all OpenGL and most Direct3D games.
Funny looking at this video. My voodoo 3 2000 died after 2 years of usage and the store where I bought it offered me the Geforce 2 Mx as a replacement under warranty.
nice. i use an MX200 because i dont have a Voodoo 3, and this shows why, it about matches it, and im fine with that, i have mine plugged into a Pentium II 450 with an SB 128 PCI card for sound.
Thank you! The "new generation" budget Geforce 2 MX200 was sold in great numbers in 2001, many people believing that it is as fast as a regular Geforce 2 MX / MX400 but actually it was overall even slower than the 2 years older mid-range Voodoo 3 2000.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 As a kid I had one of the Geforce 2 MX cards for years, basically that was the only affordable card. Voodoo cards were extremely expensive in my country. Now I can live my dream and have a few Voodoo cards and have fun with the games from my childhood.
A Voodoo is THE "nostalgia card" and it's really awesome. Have a V2 in my overclocked Pentium MMX DOS rig and a V3 in my k6-2+@600MHz windows rig. But given the price differences to a GF 2 400MX the Voodoo's are not worth it if your PC can fit a GF2. A V3 3k with 16MB for example is currently around 200+ Euros on ebay while you can get 20 GF2 400MX with 32MB for that price because it's max 10 Euros for roughly the same performance. I'd say: if you can get a V3 for cheap (doubt it) or are really really into nostalgia, then get a V3. But if you want an awesome GPU for almost no money, then get the GF2. I mean you could just get two or 3 to have spares laying around. But they are so readily available you are lucky if you are NOT stumbling across one if you open up old Pentium III's because at the end they have been built into basically every PC from the get go. Even office PCs
Very, very true. And GF2MXwhatever isn't even a good option. You can find piles of "junk" GF4MX's which are basically "GF2 with some GF3 improvements" and if willing to drop a couple of bucks you can get a GF4Ti4200 or a 8500LE.
For Windows 98 a Voodoo 2 SLI would be the best but it is expensive. A Voodoo 3 would also be excellent being compatible with almost all games from that period 1996-2002. Nvidia, ATI, S3 and Matrox cards are not good for a Windows 98 PC because they have many compatibility issues with a lot of games from 1996-1999.
Some games in this video portrait a big problem in 90's 3D gaming... Different GPU can give totally different rendering result, and "which card gives better or nicer picture" was a big point of buying consideration. At least in my eyes, Voodoo gives best graphics quality, while GeForce maybe faster in some games...
The only game where the Geforce 2 MX200 was clearly ahead of the V3 2000 was Quake 2, where it was just 10% faster. The V3 2000 on the other hand was much faster than the Geforce 2 MX200 in 3 games, Unreal (42% faster), Deus Ex (23% faster) and Warcraft 3 (20-30% faster). The V3 2000 is overall clearly faster than the Geforce 2 MX200, especially in Glide games. In terms of picture quality, the Voodoo has a visibly better 16-bit image and more intense colors in many games. The Geforce 2 MX200 on the other hand, has support for 512x512 textures, the Voodoo 3 only supports 256x256, which means lower texture quality for the V3 in some of the newer games released after the year 2000, like Warcraft 3. In my opinion the V3 2000 is overall better than the Geforce 2 MX200.
I quess it shows for importent your "flahship card" was in 1999-2001. Geforce 2 MX200 was abysmal card by early 2001 standards, and there was no point to upgrade your computer with it if you already have Voodoo 3 or Riva TNT2. But it was still cheap Geforce 2. And Geforce 2 was associated with Geforce 2 GTS model. 3dfx never relased card fast enough to compete with Geforce 2 GTS, but it was mostly about competing with Geforce 2 GTS reputation. Makes you wonder, will relase of Voodoo 5 6000 and/or Rampage or at leastfinishing Daytona on time would be enough. Having fastest video card on the market back in 2000 would have interesting effects.
Yes, for the year 2001, the GF 2 MX200 was a slow card, its performance being very similar to a 128-bit TNT2. It was significantly slower than the 128-bit GF 2 MX / MX400. Back in 2001 or 2002 I had a Voodoo 3 2000 and I purchased a new generation Geforce 2 MX (or so I thought), praised by all PC magazines of that time, and to my surprise it had the same performance as my much older Voodoo 3 2000 and was even slower in Glide games. I was very annoyed and did not understand why my Geforce 2 MX is so slow. Only later did I understood that I actually purchased a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200, not the standard 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. Unfortunately back then I did not understand the difference between the 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 and the regular 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. And many people did the same mistake as me, purchasing a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 believing that its the same as a regular Geforce 2 MX.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 Yeah, early Nvidia was already big on shady moves. The Geforce 2MX 200 was a garbage GPU and they were totally counting on people buying that card thinking it was a regular Geforce 2MX.
@@kathleendelcourt8136 back in 2001-2002 many people, including me, made the mistake of purchasing a Geforce 2 MX200 believing that it is the same as a regular Geforce 2 MX, not knowing the difference. The Geforce 2 MX200 just like the regular MX / MX400 was sold in huge numbers.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 The GeForce 2 MX cards had two 3D pixel pipelines removed and a reduced available memory bandwidth. The cards utilized either SDR SDRAM or DDR SDRAM with memory bus widths ranging from 32-bit to 128-bits
@@si4632 the typical GF 2 MX200 had a 64-bit memory bus and SDR and a memory bandwidth of 1.33 gb/s, just like the card I tested. Could be that some versions were sold with DDR and 32-bit bus but the memory bandwidth would still be the same 1.33 gb/s.
A great video🤩. For me Voodoo3 2000 for life, two years older, same FPS and higher quality in the optimized titles of that period. the voodoo3s were the best 3dfx ever produced i think, a relatively affordable card like the 2000 allows you to play everything without fear and take advantage of older titles with the dedicated glide libraries.
Thank you! Surprisingly the 2 year older mid-range Voodoo 3 2000 is overall clearly faster than the low-end 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200. In many games their performance is very very similar but in glide games the Voodoo 3 2000 is significantly faster as can be seen in Unreal and Deus Ex and even in some Direct3D games. I remember back in 2001 or 2002 I had a Voodoo 3 2000 and I purchased a new generation Geforce 2 MX (or so I thought), praised by all PC magazines of that time, and to my surprise it had the same performance as my much older Voodoo 3 2000 and was even slower in Glide games. I was very annoyed and did not understand why my Geforce 2 MX is so slow. Only later did I understood that I actually purchased a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200, not the standard 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. Unfortunately back then I did not understand the difference between the 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 and the regular 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. And many people did the same mistake as me, purchasing a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 believing that its the same as a regular Geforce 2 MX.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 I got voodoo3 in march 2000, next year i switched to geforce 2 mx just 64 bit in my favorite titles like Unreal in fact that was a downgrade😅
Thank you for continuing to share these. It truly shows how incredible gaming was on the hardware at the time
Thank you for your comment! For gamers and hardware enthusiasts that period certainly was a lot more interesting than it today.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 was fortunate enough to live through it and couldn't agree more. We had so much innovation so fast before things dropped off post-2013. It's a shame younger gamers will never know that experience and get the Micro-Transaction generic boring games.
Wow, what an amazing comparison video. Makes me miss gaming even more from back then. Bravo!
Thank you! Back in the year 2000 I had a Voodoo 3 2000 and in 2002 I wanted to get a Geforce 2 MX because all reviews from that time showed that it is significatly faster than a V3 2000. After I got one I was shocked to see that it had a very similar performace to my V3 2000 in most games and was even slower in Glide games. I didn't understand why my Geforce 2 MX is so slow. After reading on the internet and PC magazines, I finally understood what was the problem. I purchased a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200, not knowing that this version is much slower than the 128-bit version. And many of my friends and colleagues did the same mistake, also purchasing 64-bit Geforce 2 MX's, not knowing the difference.
Great and really informative 🙂
0:40 - 1:36 Still epic to this day
Yes it was! Thank you for your comment.
I had both cards back in those days, when I changed my Voodoo3 2000 for the Geforce2 MX I noticed that for those games that I could turn the 3dfx Glide on, the Voodoo would still run faster sometimes.
The GF 2 MX200 and V3 2000 perform very similar in most games. The V3 2000 seams to be a little faster in Glide games.
Unreal Engine 1 games were optimised for 3dfx GLIDE API, so that's why nvidia GF2MX is much slower in this deus ex benchmark. A few years later, however, modders have rebuilt the D3D renderer for most UE1 games, so that performance on nvidia GPUs has been greatly improved. Thanks to enhanced D3D renderer I played UE1 games on my Geforce 3 at 1280x1024x32 without any performance problems. I'm sure that the results of the Geforce2MX would also skyrocket in this deus ex benchmark if only an improved d3d renderer were to be used.
This is the official version of Deus Ex. In almost all Unreal engine games the Voodoo 3 3500 is 10-20% faster then a Geforce 2 MX 128-bit, not only in Deus Ex. The Unreal 1 engine was optimised for 3dfx card. In Glide games the V3 3500 often manages to beat the GF 2 MX 128-bit or to be at the same level. The GF 2 MX 128-bit on the other hand is significantly faster in practically all OpenGL and most Direct3D games.
Funny looking at this video. My voodoo 3 2000 died after 2 years of usage and the store where I bought it offered me the Geforce 2 Mx as a replacement under warranty.
The GF 2 MX 128-bit is a nice upgrade to a V3 2000. The GF 2 MX200 / MX 64-bit on the other hand is at the same level as a V3 2000.
nice. i use an MX200 because i dont have a Voodoo 3, and this shows why, it about matches it, and im fine with that, i have mine plugged into a Pentium II 450 with an SB 128 PCI card for sound.
Yes, the performance of a GF 2 MX200 is overall very similar to that of a Voodoo 3 2000.
Great video!
Thank you! The "new generation" budget Geforce 2 MX200 was sold in great numbers in 2001, many people believing that it is as fast as a regular Geforce 2 MX / MX400 but actually it was overall even slower than the 2 years older mid-range Voodoo 3 2000.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 As a kid I had one of the Geforce 2 MX cards for years, basically that was the only affordable card. Voodoo cards were extremely expensive in my country. Now I can live my dream and have a few Voodoo cards and have fun with the games from my childhood.
A Voodoo is THE "nostalgia card" and it's really awesome. Have a V2 in my overclocked Pentium MMX DOS rig and a V3 in my k6-2+@600MHz windows rig. But given the price differences to a GF 2 400MX the Voodoo's are not worth it if your PC can fit a GF2. A V3 3k with 16MB for example is currently around 200+ Euros on ebay while you can get 20 GF2 400MX with 32MB for that price because it's max 10 Euros for roughly the same performance. I'd say: if you can get a V3 for cheap (doubt it) or are really really into nostalgia, then get a V3. But if you want an awesome GPU for almost no money, then get the GF2. I mean you could just get two or 3 to have spares laying around. But they are so readily available you are lucky if you are NOT stumbling across one if you open up old Pentium III's because at the end they have been built into basically every PC from the get go. Even office PCs
You are right. 3dfx cards are very expensive today. In my country Romania a Voodoo 3 is around 60-90 euro, Thank god its not 200 euro.
Very, very true. And GF2MXwhatever isn't even a good option. You can find piles of "junk" GF4MX's which are basically "GF2 with some GF3 improvements" and if willing to drop a couple of bucks you can get a GF4Ti4200 or a 8500LE.
Recently found an installation disk for win98 and had an urge to build a vintage pc. just need to settle on a GPU.
For Windows 98 a Voodoo 2 SLI would be the best but it is expensive. A Voodoo 3 would also be excellent being compatible with almost all games from that period 1996-2002. Nvidia, ATI, S3 and Matrox cards are not good for a Windows 98 PC because they have many compatibility issues with a lot of games from 1996-1999.
Some games in this video portrait a big problem in 90's 3D gaming...
Different GPU can give totally different rendering result, and "which card gives better or nicer picture" was a big point of buying consideration.
At least in my eyes, Voodoo gives best graphics quality, while GeForce maybe faster in some games...
The only game where the Geforce 2 MX200 was clearly ahead of the V3 2000 was Quake 2, where it was just 10% faster. The V3 2000 on the other hand was much faster than the Geforce 2 MX200 in 3 games, Unreal (42% faster), Deus Ex (23% faster) and Warcraft 3 (20-30% faster). The V3 2000 is overall clearly faster than the Geforce 2 MX200, especially in Glide games. In terms of picture quality, the Voodoo has a visibly better 16-bit image and more intense colors in many games. The Geforce 2 MX200 on the other hand, has support for 512x512 textures, the Voodoo 3 only supports 256x256, which means lower texture quality for the V3 in some of the newer games released after the year 2000, like Warcraft 3. In my opinion the V3 2000 is overall better than the Geforce 2 MX200.
I quess it shows for importent your "flahship card" was in 1999-2001. Geforce 2 MX200 was abysmal card by early 2001 standards, and there was no point to upgrade your computer with it if you already have Voodoo 3 or Riva TNT2. But it was still cheap Geforce 2. And Geforce 2 was associated with Geforce 2 GTS model.
3dfx never relased card fast enough to compete with Geforce 2 GTS, but it was mostly about competing with Geforce 2 GTS reputation. Makes you wonder, will relase of Voodoo 5 6000 and/or Rampage or at leastfinishing Daytona on time would be enough. Having fastest video card on the market back in 2000 would have interesting effects.
Yes, for the year 2001, the GF 2 MX200 was a slow card, its performance being very similar to a 128-bit TNT2. It was significantly slower than the 128-bit GF 2 MX / MX400. Back in 2001 or 2002 I had a Voodoo 3 2000 and I purchased a new generation Geforce 2 MX (or so I thought), praised by all PC magazines of that time, and to my surprise it had the same performance as my much older Voodoo 3 2000 and was even slower in Glide games. I was very annoyed and did not understand why my Geforce 2 MX is so slow. Only later did I understood that I actually purchased a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200, not the standard 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. Unfortunately back then I did not understand the difference between the 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 and the regular 128-bit Geforce 2 MX. And many people did the same mistake as me, purchasing a 64-bit Geforce 2 MX200 believing that its the same as a regular Geforce 2 MX.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 Yeah, early Nvidia was already big on shady moves. The Geforce 2MX 200 was a garbage GPU and they were totally counting on people buying that card thinking it was a regular Geforce 2MX.
@@kathleendelcourt8136 back in 2001-2002 many people, including me, made the mistake of purchasing a Geforce 2 MX200 believing that it is the same as a regular Geforce 2 MX, not knowing the difference. The Geforce 2 MX200 just like the regular MX / MX400 was sold in huge numbers.
Mx 200 was crippled by a 32 bit memory bus
No, the MX200 had 64-bit memory and a memory bandwidth of 1.33 gb/s compared to 2.28 gb/s of the Voodoo 3 2000.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 The GeForce 2 MX cards had two 3D pixel pipelines removed and a reduced available memory bandwidth. The cards utilized either SDR SDRAM or DDR SDRAM with memory bus widths ranging from 32-bit to 128-bits
I think the ones that had DDR might of been the ones that had 32 bit bus definitely some of the Mx 200 did
@@si4632 the typical GF 2 MX200 had a 64-bit memory bus and SDR and a memory bandwidth of 1.33 gb/s, just like the card I tested. Could be that some versions were sold with DDR and 32-bit bus but the memory bandwidth would still be the same 1.33 gb/s.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 yeah pretty poor considering your bottom of the range voodoo 3 has twice the bandwidth and came out about a year before lol