Let me guess, you need more?
>>12913296>3D-onlyWell, yeah, you kinda do.
I own two but desu I wouldn't mind owning two 12MBs as well.
>>12913296in this economy on parts? I actually don't, unironically
>>12913296Just one?
>>12913296Yes.If our plutocrats are hoarding cards, then I will, too.
>>12913296>I'll take half a video card, please, thank you saar!People we're really happy this.
>>129133232x Voodoo 2 12 MB in SLI had a surprising amount of processing power. IIRC somebody managed to get Doom 3 running on that, 20-something years ago.
>>12913296Can it run Crysis?
>>12913547It could barely run Quake 3. People quickly forget how shitty the Voodoo was once Nvidia released their first TNL capable GPU.
>>12913547No, but it can run FEARhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0NsY7sBoWQ
>>12913551My biggest issue with Rivas was their boxes sucked compared to Voodoos'.
>>12913296>Let me guess, you need more?I don't but the rules say (You) do. See you in 6 years sweaty.
I'm so glad I grabbed a few OEM Voodoo 3 3500 back when they were on eBay for like 20 bucks.You do need a universal or 3.3v AGP slot but if you know where to look you can find them. I have a Asus P4S333 that has a universal AGP slot along with a Pentium 4 3.06 CPU. It's a SiS chipset but it's very stable in Win 9x and runs circles around even the fastest Tulatin build. Have a Aureal Vortex 2 for a sound card. To be fair though my main Win 9x build is a GeForce4 Ti 4600/Core 2 Duo with a Sound blaster.
>>12913301I got the Voodoo Banahee at the time. This was the simplest path. Good 2D and 3D on one card.
I have no idea to this day why 30 year old redditors and youtubers drool over retro voodoo cards. It was very short lived stopgap technology and even in the windows 98 era they were quickly surpassed.Voodoos were the god of low resolution, 16bit color, low image quality, but high frame rate, and then by 1999 it lost the framerate edge and that is why the brand no longer exists. Any of the nvidia cards from 1998-2002 are a better choice for retro machine builds, have better game support, and superior performance, and can be found cheaper than meme voodoo cards due to the autism tax (often under $25). Even in the original Tom's review in 1998 for quake 2, the voodoo 3 failed to hit 60fps at higher resolutions, and they predicted it was too little, too late.>I would also like to criticize 3Dfx's ambitious claims Voodoo3 would run games at no less than 60 fps at 1280x1024. Have a look at my benchmarks and check if Voodoo3 was anywhere near 60 fps at resolution of even less than 1024x768. Voodoo3's life spawn won't be as long as the life spawn of Voodoo1 or Voodoo2. It won't be long until a competitor has a product ready with the same performance but with support of AGP-texturing and support of 32-bit rendering. >All in all Voodoo3 is a decent product and can offer a lot of fun to most of the 3D-gamers. It's not a big step forward though, which I consider as a bit disappointing. 3Dfx got away with it for now, but times will get a lot harder for them pretty soon.Pic related from 1999 showed just how "soon" it was.
>>12914058>I have no idea>Now let me demonstrate how much of no idea i have
>>12914058That's because you are an underage faggot who never lived in the era. Before 3dfx, games ran 30fps in 256 color in 320x240, with a voodoo they ran 30fps 16bit color 640x480 with bilinear filtering, with voodoo 2 they ran 60fps. In 1996-1998, 3dfx was king, competitor cards (including Nvidia) barely worked and had half the features at best, or were graphic decelerators at worst. And every card had to be manually implemented to every game. fucking Creative had their own 3d accelerator. 3dfx at least had a proper API at that point (it was a subset of OpenGL). Direct3D didn't even exist yet.>Even in the original Tom's review in 1998 for quake 2, the voodoo 3 failed to hit 60fps at higher resolutionsThat's probably because the voodoo 3 came out in 1999 so it could not have been reviewed in 1998. But enough about how much of a clueless retard you are.
>>129132968MB? That's unnecessary, 4MB is enough.
>>12913534It was beautiful.
>>12913554>handycam footageWhat the fuck, man?
>>12914306
>>12914245320x240 software rendered looked better. I have never understood how people could stand the Vaseline smeared look of these 3d gpus.
>>12914323>when you nut but she keep sucking
>>12914534>i said the words i heard on the youtube. Surely now the 4chin will accept me.
>>12914245>Before 3dfx, games ran 30fps in 256 color in 320x240for 3d shit.. yeah. it's fast.>640x480 with bilinear filteringlooked like ass>And every card had to be manually implemented to every gamedoubt>>12914534>I have never understood how people could stand the Vaseline smeared look of these 3d gpus.same. it wasn't very good. nintendo's n64 did the same shit to smooth out tiny textures and made everything look like ass when coders used the default gpu microcode libraries supplied with the sdk
>>12914058>I have no idea to this day why 30 year old redditors and youtubers drool over retro voodoo cardsHave you tried actually playing some video games?Back in the 90's graphics hardware was evolving fast and breaking things equally fast. If you bought anything other than a 3DFX card it was virtually guaranteed that half your games either didn't work at all or had some major issues depending on your driver version and what combination of other software and hardware you had.All ATI Radeon cards ever made have major issues with 2D scrolling in DOS, notably Commander Keen stutters like hell. Geforce cards are actual trash for any early Direct3D games, and anything made for Win3.1 or Win95. S3 has like one good series of 3D accelerators and they're pretty much all OEM cards with no proper model markings. Matrox cards seriously lack performance in most games. 3DFX cards may not be the prettiest or the fastest, but you are pretty much guaranteed to be able to run almost any game on them.It's the same with the Sound Blaster 16. Any other card that wasn't just a cheap SB16-clone was better, but none of them were guaranteed to work with everything.
Is it even possible to get one of these in 2026 without paying out the ass?
>>12917369Nope. Everything with the Voodoo name is expensive as fuck now. I'm actually a bit surprised no one has made a hardware clone of some kind yet, given they're very well emulated at this point.
>>12913296Yeah, another one.
>>12913296I remember going from a Voodoo 2 to a Geforce 3 and it was like a quantum leap
>>12917342Yeah but why are those cards still necessary? How does it improve the gaming experience today over using wrappers and such?
>>12920176It's like asking a car enthusiast what the point of getting or putting together a1 vintage car is when a modern day Sentra will get you from A to B just fine. If that's all you care about, then yeah it won't make sense to you. To some people the hobby is more than just being able to play games.
I remember I had a matrox g400 or whatever... it was HORRIBLE
>>12922980This.Old bad things are bad when new things can do the same old thing but better.Old classic cars are terrible.
>>12923008False memory syndrome. The G400 (and especially the MAX variant) was a decent card in its day. Matrox cards were legendary for their VGA output quality and the drivers were solid, if unspectacular in terms of features. If you were trying to use one years after release in the early 2000s then it would have been slow as shit, but so would a Voodoo 3 or any other card released in 1999, such was the pace of progress.
>>12915014>doubtDirect3d did not exist yet and OpenGL was not supported (in fact 3dfx gave that a boost because its API was just a superset of OpenGL). Yes, you had to program each card individually. Same way as you had to program most sound cards individually as well, until some middleware came around to get around this, but by that time things were already transitioning to Windows.When D3D came out, it automatically invalidated a bunch of 3d "accelerators" because they could not support D3D even with major driver restructuring, they were just not built to the spec. This includes Nvidias first 3d card, the NV1.>looked like assBecause you look at youtube videos that have a low bitrate stream stretched onto your 4k 27" monitor. Back in 1996 when we had 14" 640x480 CRTs, that effect looked wild.
>>12920176You are basically asking why would people want to own old consoles when everything from PSX and below is already perfectly emulated. Some people like original hardware, that's it.
>>12914534Me either. It's a large tragedy that we lost that software render look in games.
>>12923878A lot of modern indie games intentionally go for that look these days, though they're aping the PS1 rather than PC software rendered games more than anything.
>>12923881These indie games often look like garbage. Totally missing the point, they amplify the worst aspects of the ps1 graphics without capturing any of the design features that made ps1 graphics look good.
