Quote:


Much more

I guess Hank would have like ALL the cards  at home.
Rare voodoo4 and 3 boards, but I wonder if Hank also worked on the Voodoo 1 or maybe 2??
But like sad before the Voodoo2 is a symbol of dominance of 3Dfx. But Another card of dominance is the Quantum3D 100sb 4440 (now that was a BEAST at its time ). But Stil the fact remains that the V5 6k symbolises all the hopes of 3Dfx fans for 3Dfx to take back its trone, were it one time had been sitting.

> V5-6k was probably the biggest joke 3dfx came up with.

You facts please? I was under the impression multiple processors is the way to go when it comes to heavy workloads and the VSA setup very neatly got around the problem of stupidly expensive ram for the memory bottleneck.

> this card, with it's huge external PSU and ridiculous cost, was never going to be affordable by the average user

Key phrase- "average user"

I could make the same statement about the Nvidia 6800, $500 *and* I'm required to have a 480 watt power supply? For this I get a glorified Geforce for $500 with a dustbuster cooling system?

Funny ATI's X800 PE kicks it in the jimmies and it doesn't require a 480 watt power supply.

>  and definately wasn't going to save 3dfx from their ulitmate demise or compete with products from Nvidia, this is why 3dfx abandoned it's release.

1) Wasn't meant to save 3dfx, it was a flagship product which always has limited sales. *if* it was released on time benchmarks show it would have gone toe to toe with a *GF3* a product that was a year from being released.

2) VSA was an interm product till Rampage was released which by all rights was a killer product that 3dfx should have released sooner but was sidetracked by feature creep and people being pulled away onto other chipsets like Banshee.

> Voodoo5 was a short term "fix", the single VSA-100, Voodoo4 compares badly with Voodoo3.  It just isn't enough of an improvement, performance wise, over the older chip.

That's correct, rumor has it that it should have gone through one more design revision but 3dfx was behind the 8 ball.

> Using the combined fill rate of two or more chips on one board, the Voodoo5, is nothing more than a wasteful cheap hack.

Wasteful? You need to read up on how 4 sample AA is done, multi-gpu is the best way to render a sceen with AA and 3dfx had the best way of doing it.

See cheap memory note above.

Multi gpu = cheaper ram and more bandwith.

>  Voodoo5 6k was taking things to the insane level though.

Don't buy it then, no one was or is twisting your arm.

3dfx had great people working for them, but they had bad business practices due to the fact they were founded by people who design things, not run business!

On the other hand Nvida is full with nasty little payoffs, driver "optimsations" and lawsuit bullsh*t.

Enough to make a man puke.

.Just make a great product and let the market decide

Quote:


And ram prices today are much different then they were back then- If you check reviews *back then* you will find that the biggest problem almost everyone was working on was the memory bottleneck. Nvidias solution was expensive ram, 3dfx's was multi gpu working on the same problem splitting the bandwith.

Both ways have their drawbacks, Nvidas was cost of ram, 3dfx's was having to use 2 chips and PCB cost.

Quote:


The Geforce 2 Ultra was a $435-500 product, MUCH MORE expensive then a V-5500 ($300) Non-Ultra cards were in the $300 range.

A quick Google search will confirm this.

In all fairness (I am reasonable)  the GF2 was about equal to the V-5500 and was priced comparable to it.

Quote:


In what 3DMark 2000? Well known fact Nvidia payed them off. I'll stick to real games as a benchmark not some bs "test program" that to this day is still being manipulated by Nvidia cash.

Quote- "Looking at the performance data presented here it obvious that 3DMark 2000 and 2001 did not offer representative data concerning 3dfx performance in D3D mode.  3DMark 2001 is particularly bad in this respect."

In Quake III the V-6000 went toe to toe with a GF-3, Nvidas favorite benchmark that their drivers are tuned for! With a card not even released yet

In Serious Sam the V-6000 greases even the GF-3.

*IF* the V-6000 was launched when it was suppose to (late 99) it would have been the leading performance card for a year. And that's based on benchmarks done with an unreleased card with beta drivers vs a GF3 with polished drivers.  

Quote:


Rampage was up and running Quake 3 two weeks before 3dfx threw in the towel. Yes it was delayed by people being pulled off for other projects and feature creep, I have already mentioned this.

Quote:


Rampage was *finished* no more funding was really needed, it was too late though. 3dfx owed people money and ran out of time. I suspect there are other factors as well, they sure did sell off to Nvidia in a big flaming hurry.

Quote:


Check your facts- V5500 was cheaper then GF2 Ultra by a huge margin and equal to a GF2 GTS.

Quote:


So... Why has Nvidia's method been so lacking? I was laughing the other day since the 6800 just started using the method 3dfx used in the VSA-100 card, rotated grid anti-aliasing.

Quote:


Why do I also own a gas guzzling 1970 Plymouth GTX? Why do people collect stamps or bugs, etc, etc.


Quote:


You have a complex? I didn't blame them for anything. Most of 3dfx's problems can be laid at their own feet which I pointed out. Products late to market due to feature creep, bad managment, mistake of buying STB, etc. They were working to improve these issues by getting rid of the bad people, selling off STB, going back to their previous business model but it was too late.

On the other hand if you wish mention Nvidia, 3dfx was taking them to the cleaners in court because Nvidia was guilty of infringing on their patent. Their suit toward the end was nothing more then a delaying tactic to get 3dfx to spend more cash on lawyers instead of bills. Worked too didn't it?

Quote:


And what is wrong with a mini driver? (which was just for the Quake based games btw)  I have the choice of installing it or not installing it. That's hardly a sin compared to Nvidia drivers that shut certain features off in the name of benchmark numbers even though they are checked "on" in the control panel.

I call that cheating, it's deception pure and simple.

Quote:


LOL, he agrees with me because I'm speaking the truth and the opinions of 99% of PC users that have managed to move on and who believe that those who spend $1000's  on huge dated cards need to seek psychologial help.

And your comments come as no surprise little boy.  Instead of brown nosing Hank and the others at 3dfx zone, and repeating their words parrot fashion wherever you go, come over to VF and I may give you a little job moderating my deleted posts forum. Or are you just the d!ckless, whiny little post basher that most people think you are?

Noone wants to join your little forum. Noone really likes it either. You people are anal about everything on that forum. You've got like 2 members there, and you hand over ranks as if you had 35497484874 (tm).
"so and so is stepping down" and whatnot; ANAL!.
And you talk about people moving on about 3dfx, yet don't you like own voodoofiles or something? 

What administration!?!

:: shakes head ::

I mean god who do you people think you are at voodoofiles? Gods?

Random quote: "The administration has decided that it is in everyone's best interest not to upload the old posts from the previous iteration of VoodooFiles. "



And that 3dfx help page. tisk tisk tisk

Quote:


WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

Quote:


hmm, sarcasm...

Quote:


At first it seemed like it, seeing that amp_man happened to just register during those "debates". 

The rest of the crap you posted does not matter as it does not affect me in anyway, so you basically wasted your time; clearly you have the time to waste. You basically gave me a run down of your pathetic little life and the people around it. None of those people have done anything to help this community. But nice try. 

Bottom line is, you seem to enjoy "bashing" 3dfx, do it in your own little forum, but don't do it here.