3dfx Voodoo 3 3500 vs Nvidia Geforce 4 MX420

[@christopheoberrauch784]

Almost three years between the release of both cards. At the end of the 90s and beginning of the 2000s, the leaps in performance were enormous. Today, the leaps in performance are no longer as high. However, an RTX 4090 cannot be compared with a GTX 1080 Ti either.

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Yes back then the performance increased more then 2x every year. Even the fastest cards became obsolete in a maximum of 2 years after their release.

[@efpcvintageplanet3406]

nice comparison. The 3500 holds up well. 3 years was a long time, the lack of hardware support for T&L has an impact. However, even on heavy titles it always performs well and in Unreal where you can take advantage of glides even if it has fewer FPS the quality of 3dfx is superior 😉

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

The Geforce 4 MX420, being released 3 years after the Voodoo 3, is of course the faster card. But surprisingly the Voodoo 3 still has a better 16-bit image quality, more vibrant colors, and in some games it even manages to have a similar frame rate as the much newer Geforce 4 MX420. On the other hand the Geforce 4 MX420 is significantly faster in most games. Overall the Geforce 4 MX420 is 10-30% faster than a Geforce 2 MX or MX400.

[@nigeltrigger4499]

OK. so I should sell my RTX4090 and buy a GeForce 4 MX420?

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Hehe, only if you want to play games from the late 90s and early 2000s.

[@阿綸的全勳學院]

Good game test!thank you for share ps:Can test V3 3500 1600x1200 in No One Lives Forever! ???

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Thank you! Unfortunately I only own monitors with a maximum resolution of 1280x1024. The frame rate would be very low anyway in 1600x1200 with the V3 3500.

[@阿綸的全勳學院]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 i know!But i like 3DFX Card

[@lopwidth7343]

Igi and blacl hawk down was too much for the geforce 2, but unreal tournament 2003 and battlefield 1942 worked great

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Curiously the Voodoo 3 3500 has a very similar performance to the newer Geforce 2 MX 128-bit in Unreal Tournament 2003.

[@lopwidth7343]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 I have such fond memories of that era. Games were so snappy feeling even at 30-40fps unlike todays APIs

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Yes back then 30-40 fps where considered excellent.

[@fahima2879]

Great video! I had the 64 MB DDR version which is slower than the GeForce 2 GTS (in most cases) The 420 still played games well from the late 90s to the early 2000s. Would have been nice if 3DFX had put 32 bit color support on the Voodoo 3. I think it would have made it more competitive compared to the TNT 2 and later ATI’s Rage 128 Pro.

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Thank you! The Geforce 4 MX420 was a budget card released 3 years after the Voodoo 3 but it was still interesting to see a comparison since in many games the performance difference wasn’t that big. The DDR version of the Geforce 4 MX420 had an indentical performance to the SDR version, the DDR one having a 64-bit memory buss and the SDR a 128-bit buss.

[@GerritTjaardAMarinus]

3DFX would leave the TNT 2 and ATI Rage 128 pro in the DUST !!

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

@@GerritTjaardAMarinus The Voodoo 3 was faster than both the TNT2 and ATI Rage 128. It just does not have 32-bit support but that is totally unnecessary since those card are too slow for 32-bit gaming anyway.

[@fahima2879]

Yes the 64 MB DDR version had 64 bit bus. There is actually a video on another YT channel where they compare the GeForce 4 MX 4000 which is rebranded GeForce 4 MX 420 64 bit DDR that NVIDIA released in 2003 which is the same exact spec as the 64 MB DDR GeForce 4 MX 420. Anyways it was a nice comparison to see how a higher end 3DFX Voodoo 3 performed compared to a lower end GeForce 4 3 years later.

[@fahima2879]

@@GerritTjaardAMarinusYes voodoo 3 would smoke the TNT 2 and Rage 128 Pro in 16 but color resolutions sometimes by 20-30%. Problem is a lot of gamers started to switch to TNT 2 because they wanted the better graphical fidelity offered by 32 bit color since by end of 1998 and certainly by 1999 games started to support 32 bit color even though the performance was less. You may not get full 60 FPS but get 30-40 FPS with 32 bit color in games. Voodoo 3 also only supported 256x256 texture size while upcoming Quake 3 engine supported 512x512 texture size which the TNT 2 supported. I think it was mistake for 3DFX to just go for performance and not focus on other features like 32 bit support and only 256x256 texture size when they knew the popular game coming later in the year would support 32 bit color rendering and 512x512 texture size. They could have held onto the enthusiast to go with 3DFX Voodoo 3 since they already had PC Gamers mind share with the very successful Voodoo 2 and held of NVIDIA until the Voodoo 5 arrived which ironically arrived late to market thus giving ATI and NVIDIA a year and half lead with providing GPUs that had those feature sets. I have been reading a lot of older hardware magazines lately and those ones were complaining about Voodoo 3 lack of support of those features back in 1999 during the thick of the GPU wars. I think that’s was a contributing factor among others that caused 3DFX’s eventual demise.

[@czviktor]

It's still highend versus lowend .And given today's price it makes no sense to deal with Voodoo unless one wants to discover the Glide API. It's great to see what you get for your money .I thank you and will buy some 128 bit MX4 before the end of the year .....on Voodoo I would have to find reserves ;)

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

For games released after the year 2000 the Geforce 4 MX420 is the better choice but for games released beforce the year 2000 the Voodoo 3 3500 is certainly better, even if it is slower, because of its superior compatibility with the games from that period.

[@infinity2z3r07]

I did not know MX420 as a low-profile card could be 128-bit memory. Interesting!

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

The card in the tumbnail is not the one I have, it's just a picture of a GF 4 MX420 I used because I could not find a high quality picture of my card. My SDR memory GF 4 MX420 is not a low profile card. But the Geforce 4 MX420 was sold with both DDR (64-bit buss) and SDR (128-bit buss), with identical performance.

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

I just looked it up and interestingly there are GF 4 MX420 cards with 128-bit SDR memory and low profile, just like the card I used in the tumbnail.

[@infinity2z3r07]

thanks for this information! 🙏@@3dfxvoodoocards6

[@prempink12311]

Gabriel knight 3 test

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

That's a very nice game I almost forgot about. I guess I will have to try it out in the next weeks :)

[@O.Shawabkeh]

Surprising advantage fot GF2MX. I did not expect that.

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

The card I tested here is a Geforce 4 MX420, which is overall aroud 10-30% faster than a Geforce 2 MX.

[@O.Shawabkeh]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 huh (o.O) I always thought they were the same. Time for me to recheck then. Thanks for your work!

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

@@O.Shawabkeh Thank you! The Geforce 4 MX420 is 10-30% faster than the Geforce 2 MX / MX400.

[@BrunodeSouzaLino]

Isn't GeForce 4 MX420 a rebranded Geforce 2?

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

Yes it is, with minor optimisations. The Geforce 4 MX420, thank to its higher clocked GPU - 250 mhz, is around 10-30% faster than a Geforce 2 MX or MX400.

[@wowitsshit9734]

Athlon xp 1500+ holding back GeForce 4 i think

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

No it doesn't. The Geforce 4 MX420 is the slowest card of the Geforce 4 series with a performance just 10-30% higher than a Geforce 2 MX or MX400. Practically the Geforce 4 MX420 is just a higher clocked Geforce 2 MX / MX400. It even has the same memory bandwidth as the Geforce 2 MX / MX400, just the core clock is running at a higher frequency of 250 mhz.

[@wowitsshit9734]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 okay my mx440 was being held back a lot.

[@3dfxvoodoocards6]

@@wowitsshit9734 probably, the MX440 128-bit is around 50-60% faster than a MX420.

[@wowitsshit9734]

@@3dfxvoodoocards6 yes, i am sure my athlon xp 1800+ system bottlenecks mx440