3D

================ Understanding 3D ================

After following numerous posts, one thing is clear. There is a great deal of confusion and frustration about 3D graphics. As FS98 is many folk's first entry into 3D-capable gaming, it's natural that such confusion exists. Unfortunately, the collective expectation level the user community placed on FS98, including all the hype, have made this particular topic even more frustrating for many. Many have left or are considering leaving the FS98 community, thinking that FS98 was shoddily produced and believing that FS98 does not live up to its system requirements. After reading this document and understanding more about 3D graphics, I think you will agree that the lion's share of the frustration lies in the misunderstanding, not the software. At the very least, you might understand what you can do to get the best possible results.

I hope to offer some insight into 3D by providing a high-level explanation of what it is and what it is not. As this is a FS newsgroup, I will include FS98-specific examples.

What is 3D?

This is a simple question with a complex answer. First, understand that whether 2D or 3D, the results wind up in the same place; on your monitor. Traditionally, to create software images that have "depth", the software would have to process all the computations to determine what goes where, how it is placed, and translate it into 2D instructions, that except for some shortcuts, basically says, "make this pixel that color". Virtually all of this processing takes place on the CPU itself and requires enormous overhead. Some hardware vendors, through drivers and hardware features have accelerated this process by allowing applications to describe an entire shape at once, instead of its individual pixels. While this speeds the process by reducing the amount of data sent to the video card, the CPU must still make all the geometrical computations. This is why programs like FS5.1 and FSFW95 have always struggled to provide high frame rates. (Note: this is also why FS98 frame rates and display quality, when not 3D enabled, do not significantly differ from FSFW95)

Adding a high-speed video card can improve the display rate, but since the vast majority of the overhead occurs on the CPU, increasing CPU horsepower has traditionally been the most effective way to improve the display rate. Similarly, as most of the computational and rendering processes take place on the CPU, this accounts for the consistency in image appearance. For example, there is likely to be very little deviation between an image rendered to a low-end card and a high-end card. The high-end card may improve frame rate somewhat, but the quality of each frame is very similar.

In a Win95 world, it is also important to understand that a program, once it has determined, "what goes where", sends virtually the same instructions to the operating system regardless of your video card. FS, and virtually all other applications, do not see much beyond this point and do not differentiate between a high-end and low-end video card. This is why, in Windows95, drivers are so important. The drivers pick up these instructions that are common to all video cards, and interpret them into the instructions that the hardware can understand and exploit for best performance. This allows developers to write programs that are more hardware independent, and allow manufacturers to introduce cards that are compatible with the entire operating system, and by extension, all "Windows95 compatible programs". This holds true for all programs from spreadsheets to flight simulators. In fact, this concept depends on the fact that the program generates identical instructions, regardless of hardware, and applies to sound cards, joysticks, modems, etc, as well. (This is also why using the most current drivers is so important!)

Now enters 3D. What 3D provides is a way of describing complex objects in simple terms. Instead of having to understand and compute every geometrical aspect of "what goes where", the program can now simply describe an entire object in terms if its dimensions, placement, and texture, all at once. To the program, (and the programmers), this makes life much easier and efficient, as they can focus on placing the right objects in the right places (i.e. mountains, buildings, clouds), without having to manage all the ugliness involved with turning each pixel on or off. This means flight simulator can concern itself with more flight, and less picture drawing. Just as with traditional 2D graphics, the drivers pick up these instructions and translates them into the final product. Similarly, regardless of the 3D video system, the program continues to issue a common set of instructions that do not vary from device to device. However, this is where the world begins to change. This is also where the drivers become the most critical link in the chain.

In a 2D "pixel on pixel off" world, the application itself did most of the processing and determined specifically what pixels would be turned on and off. In effect, 2D drivers simply "ape" these pixilation to the video card and out to the monitor. *****WARNING***** 3D DOES NOT WORK THIS WAY. For example, FS98 may determine that the appropriate position for a mountain is at x,y,z, with dimensions of a,b,c, and texture d. That is just about all it tells the operating system. The drivers pick this information up, and in turn IT IS THE DRIVERS THAT ACTUALLY DO THE MATH AND GENERATE THE FINAL OUTPUT. This is a HUGE reason why identical scenarios using different drivers may produce dramatically different results. The primary responsibility is no longer the application's, it is the driver and its hardware! Remember, FS98 is going to continue to issue the same instructions. The drivers, however, may do many different things with those instructions; some good, some VERY bad. "Garbage out" may not always require "Garbage In"! We may have just established "reasonable doubt" here.

SO, WHAT IS DIRECTX, WHY DO I NEED IT?

Because of the literally millions of software/hardware instruction combinations, the need for maintaining a consistent method to express these instructions, and receive them, becomes the heart and soul of all this mess working. Welcome to the world of DirectX. DirectX is an extension of the operating system that allows all of these ugly combinations to maintain such broad compatibility. Direct3D is a subset of this, just as is DirectDraw, DirectPlay, DirectInput, etc. DirectX also allows a little bit of shortcutting, but this is the kind of bits-n-bytes thing I want to avoid discussing here.

The bottom line is that any application that uses DirectX can communicate with any device that is DirectX compatible. (Well ok, it's not a perfect world, but when the hardware vendors hold up their end too, it does work) When that extra measure of shortcutting is thrown into the mix, this provides enhanced performance as well. There are other ways of doing this, but DirectX is fast becoming the standard most recognize. Again, drivers are the hardware gateway to DirectX, and as such, are absolutely vital.

OK, WISE GUY. I INSTALLED DIRECTX, AND MY VIDEO CARD IS DIRECTX (AND DIRECT3D) COMPATIBLE. SO WHERE ARE THESE FRAME RATES AND REALISM EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT HUH? DOES FS98 REALLY STINK?

Here is where the smoke clears. Remember, that all a specific device has to do to support Direct3D is be able to interpret its instructions. That means that as long as the driver can understand what it receives, it can produce the output. ***** HERE IS THE FINE PRINT ***** Even though the responsibility shifts to the driver, the driver has to figure all this stuff out somewhere. In many cases, the driver performs similar mathematical computations, including all the associated overhead, right there on the CPU! This is called software emulation. This is also why, unless the driver wanted to dim your living room lights, it is not likely to produce results that are noticeably better than traditional 2D!

SO HOW DO I GET THESE "INCREDIBLE GRAPHICS"?

The reason why some video hardware DOES provide much improved performance under 3D is a separate and unrelated feature called "HARDWARE ACCELERATION". This means that the video card itself has specific processors and features that can take these simplified 3D object descriptions and translate them itself. Because it is dedicated to doing this, and ONLY this by design, it can usually do it much faster! In either case, it relieves the burden of all the ugly math from the CPU, freeing it up to send instructions for the next frame.

In practical terms, this is entirely the reason that older 2D cards can become Direct3D certified, while not providing a performance boost. This is also the reason that such a wide variance exists in image quality between different hardware accelerated cards. Most importantly, this is why the video hardware itself, AND NOT FS98, is responsible for either extremely realistic, or extremely disappointing graphics. FS98 GENERATES THE SAME INSTRUCTIONS FOR BOTH CARDS. Once again, drivers and video hardware have NEVER been as critical as they are under this new technology.

DOES THIS MEAN I DIDN'T GET WHAT I PAID FOR?

Well, that is a difficult and subjective question. However, as the postings here indicate, there was some expectation that Direct3D compatible somehow equated to "improved performance". Any discrepancy, as shown above, is most likely to have come from not understanding what 3D benefit truly is and requires. The video card and its drivers, and not the software will determine the greatest variance. Remember, FS98 (as all DirectX programs), issue the same instructions whether your video card is made by Diamond, Matrox, or Harvey the Rabbit. The bottom line is that DirectX is required to enjoy compatibility, but DirectX itself does not provide it.

Only you can decide if a video upgrade is worthwhile for FS98. But please note, that even without it, there is not a huge variance between what you saw in FSFW95 and what you will see now. So the real issue is not, "What am I going to lose", it is "What NEW features do I want to exploit"

FINAL THOUGHTS, AND A NEW WAY OF THINKING.

This way of handling graphics forces everyone to adopt some new perspectives. First, and foremost, we must understand that while 3D adds a whole new, well er, "dimension" to FS98, the reverse is not true. FS98 does not bring anything new and revolutionary to 3D. It uses the same 3D instructions as any other Direct3D compatible application, and is frankly nothing "special" in the 3D world. While FS98 may contain some logic bugs (too early to tell), any 3D performance/non-performance variance resides in the video hardware. (Again this is true for ALL D3D applications.

NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERFORMANCE AND BETTER VALUE.

Traditionally, as explained above, the best way to dramatically improve performance was a faster CPU. In the 3D world, this is no longer true. It is possible to see improvements SEVERAL TIMES GREATER by enhancing the 3D hardware acceleration capabilities as this is where most of the graphics overhead occurs. In many cases a P166 with a high-end gaming 3D accelerator will outperform a 233MMX with a lesser gaming accelerator. Indeed, we all may have to change our thinking.

In closing, I hope this helps to clarify what has been such an obvious (and fixable) source of frustration. Also, I hope it helps those who believe that FS98 was "shoddily" produced, understand that these principals and results are true with ANY D3D application. The problem lies in a lack of understanding, NOT a lack of development consideration. If FS98 is not the right choice for you, I hope you find the right one. I would just hate for those to leave with a "bad taste", leaving the table without ever truly knowing why they experienced what they did, and therefore, for the wrong reason(s). -- Kindest Regards,

William R. (Bill) Hoscheit Pacific Presentation Graphics

Which 3DFX Video Board to Choose - Choose Wisely! =================================================

Many recent postings have addressed the 3Dfx Voodoo chipsets and their retail products. The two principal variants are the Voodoo Graphics stand-alone 3D add-in card, and the Voodoo Rush (most commonly available as the Hercules Stingray 128/3D), which incorporates 2D and 3D in a single card solution.

Numerous postings claim this one is better or that one is worse, based upon a specific feature or specification. While these cards share closely related chipsets, their implementation are as different as the sun and the moon. No one should select either based upon a limited set of criteria. Hopefully, this posting will offer some insight into their differences and how to cut through the endless "mine-is-bigger" recommendations to arrive at the best possible choice for each user. Besides, I've never won a "mine-is-bigger" contest, so I try to avoid them. (another story altogether. :( ) I'd rather make evaluations based on all the facts.

Introduction

Well, it's been a busy day. I have spent the last several hours using and comparing products based on the 3Dfx Voodoo Graphics chipset to those based on the 3Dfx Voodoo Rush chipset. The results both surprised and reassured me. After putting each through its paces, both Flight Simulator 98 and otherwise, there are some very interesting details. Hopefully these details will help anyone who might be confused or "on the fence" make the right individual choice.

The two products I tested were the Diamond Monster 3D and the brand new Hercules Stingray 128/3D S3318TV. While there are other products with different features and combinations of these two 3Dfx chipsets, these products are readily available and representative of the performance, quality, and features one will likely find regardless of the retail brand name. The purchase price for each product retail product was $149 and $249 respectively. When testing the Monster 3D, I use a Matrox Millenium II to provide standard video.

As one of my hobbies, I enjoy the eternal quest to find the ultimate combination of performance, quality, value, and compatibility. This applies to both hardware and software. In general, my PC is a 200MHz Pentium Pro, with 128MB RAM, running Windows 95 OSR 2.1 (including all current patches), on a FAT32 file system. When running these test, I remove all start-up and background processes and perform a full hard disk optimization, ensuring the maximum amount of system resources are available for the benchmarks and Flight Simulator 98. Except for the products I am currently evaluating, all devices use the most current WHQL drivers. When "simming", it runs "lean and clean". (All I need is a good deicer during the winter months).

Enough of the bits-n-bytes, but it is important to understand the environment in which I am comparing these products. Actual mileage may vary. For a detailed system inventory, please review the last section of this document.

The Voodoos

3Dfx offers two Voodoo flavors. One serves as the core for a stand-alone add-on product that works in addition to, but independent of, existing hardware. The result is a 3D only add-on card that works along side an existing "2D" traditional video adapter. 3Dfx calls this product the Voodoo Graphics chipset. Its sister product is the Voodoo Rush. 3Dfx designed the Voodoo Rush to offer the same high-quality 3D rendering capabilities to all-in-one solutions. Voodoo Rush products offer traditional 2D and 3D acceleration on the same physical card. These two are very different ways of approaching the same challenge.

Having sprouted from the same seed, both product types offer the same high-quality 3D rendering. However, each entails different strengths, weaknesses and a variety of other "non-image" factors. As such, this document focuses on their differences. Understanding these differences is the key to making the right individual 3Dfx-based product choice. There is no one "right" answer. The best choice, however, will result from considering at least all the factors that each product presents.

The Voodoo Graphics

As a stand-alone solution, the Voodoo Graphics provides complete and independent 3D processing. In its current form, it requires its own board and a separate slot. As its functionality is limited to 3D processing only, it requires an existing traditional 2D graphics card for normal PC operation. It works along side, but completely independently from an existing 2D video card. Its installation is simple and straightforward. A short patch cable connects the 2D video card's output connector to an input connector on the Voodoo Graphics card. In turn, the monitor cable connects to an output connector on the Voodoo Graphics card.

Because the Voodoo Graphics cards handle 3D completely apart from the existing video card, it will work equally well with any 2D accelerator. It does not rely on, nor need it even recognize, the traditional video card. Application software determines which card handles the processing, and only one of the two is ever "live" at any one time. This means that when the Voodoo Graphics card is active, it processes full-screen 3D rendering only. The system must switch to the original video adapter for any 2D, or normal operating system graphics, processing. When the 3D application resumes, the system switches back to the Voodoo Graphics card. Never the two shall meet.

The Voodoo Rush

Because the Voodoo Rush allows (and requires) 2D and 3D integration, a Voodoo Rush video card looks and installs much like any traditional 2D video card. The same card contains a second independent processor for handling normal 2D graphics. It does not require a second slot, nor is there any patch cable. A card containing the Voodoo Rush replaces an existing video card and becomes the system's sole 2D and 3D graphics source.

As an integrated solution, the Voodoo Rush is capable of displaying traditional 2D graphics and 3D graphics at the same time. This means a 3D accelerated application may occupy a window within the normal Windows 95 desktop. A Voodoo Rush card can also run full-screen, similar in appearance to the Voodoo Graphics. In this case, the card suspends the 2D processing engine and gives total control to the Voodoo Rush. As with the Voodoo Graphics, the system must switch back to the 2D video controller for any normal or non-3D processing.

That Voodoo That They Do So Well...

Understanding the different implementations offers a strong foundation for identifying their operational characteristics. Having already determined equal rendering (image) quality, the real importance lies in how the cards differ in performance and impact system configurations. These two chipsets are as far apart in these factors as they are similar in their image quality. This is where the opportunity lies to understand which overall considerations will provide each person with the best choice.

To start, I will describe how the cards differ in three general characteristics; performance, features, and system configuration considerations. A notable fourth is value, but that is entirely subjective and best left to each potential user.

One notable addition is the Voodoo Rush's 2D capabilities. Because its card replaces the existing 2D video adapter, I will also describe its 2D performance and features. This is not 3D related, but represents a significant change as it also becomes the default video card. In terms of system impact, this can be more important than its 3D capabilities. (Unless of course the PC's sole purpose is gaming)

Features

Both the Voodoo Graphics and Voodoo Rush focus on the same core rendering engines. Therefore the visual output is virtually identical. However, each has distinct features with distinct advantages and associated trade-offs. Just as in life, ain't nothin' for free.

Besides its outstanding rendering quality and speed, the Voodoo Graphics offers very little feature flexibility. When in use, because of its stand-alone nature, it completely takes over video processing. The result is a maximum 3D resolution of 800x600x16. The vast majority of 3D games do not exploit resolutions higher than 800x600, so for the majority of software 800x600 provides an acceptable high-quality image. As it runs unencumbered by higher resolutions, and the associated overhead, it is extremely fast.

The Voodoo Rush, on the other hand, supports numerous 3D configuration and resolution combinations. Because it works with a 2D adapter, it can offer fully rendered 3D within a Windows application window. This is very useful when multitasking with other applications, or running FS98 add-on products, such as chat windows, which require a separate display window. Using a Voodoo Graphics-based card, these windows cannot be displayed on the screen concurrently with the 3D accelerated image. FS98 must revert to a 2D based image during these periods. In addition to its 3D windowing, the Voodoo Rush also supports accelerated resolutions as high as 1280x1024x16. At these higher resolutions, this can dramatically increase image sharpness. Unfortunately, there is an appreciable performance decrease. When compared to the Voodoo Rush at 800x600x16, I have noticed frame-rate reductions of more than 60% using 1280x1024x16. These reductions are even more dramatic when compared to a Voodoo Graphics chipset at 800x600x16 (more than 75%). As I said, ain't nothing for free.

In its 1024x768x16 mode, the Voodoo Rush can dramatically improve the instrument panel readability. It also will give better near-object scenery definition. For many, this is a worthwhile trade-off, as the performance hit is about 20% from 800x600x16 mode. One observation I have made, however, is that this also affects general scenery appearance. IMO, it is possible to "over define" or "over sharpen" scenery. This can negate many of the blending and perspective improvements the Voodoo chipsets offer at 800x600x16. While being more defined, IMO, it appears "less real". Of course, actual mileage may vary. For those who have trouble reading the instrument panel, if a clearer instrument panel is a necessity, this may be very good alternative.

Another characteristic feature of the Voodoo Graphics-based cards occurs during "switching". Switching happens any time the PC requires 2D processing. Such processing includes displaying menu bars or other non 3D-accelerated applications. As the Voodoo Graphics card has no 2D capabilities whatsoever, the output must change to a different physical card. When switching, Voodoo Graphics card exhibit the now-famous "blink" while the responsibility shifts. Although it only takes a fraction of a second to "switch", it is noticeable and can be annoying. The blink also comes from the monitor changing its refresh rates to synchronize itself with the active video adapter. The Voodoo Rush actually does the same thing. However, because of its integrated implementation, there is always a small portion of the 2D processor that remains "awake". As the 2D never totally sleeps and the switch occurs within the same physical card, where both processors share some common infrastructure components, the switch occurs much faster and without a monitor refresh rate adjustment. It is so much faster that the change can sometimes be imperceptible. This issue is much more prominent for those who frequently access the menus, but does not affect performance during normal flight.

One very nice bonus the new S3318TV Stingray 128/3D offers is TV and virtual reality headset connectivity. For those interested in large-screen TV simming or video display, this can be a very valuable add-on. Typically, if purchased separately, similar converters cost between $99 and $200. For those who own (or plan to own) a VR headset, the value significantly increases also.

System Configuration Considerations

The physical differences alone imply radically different system considerations. Also, as the Voodoo Rush incorporates 2D in its architecture, it entails a much more significant change to the system that reaches far beyond 3D gaming acceleration. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely upon the system configuration and its owner.

Because the Voodoo Graphics resides on its own card, a good perspective to adopt is the same as adding any other "non video" component or upgrade. Just as a modem is not related to the graphics card (if it is, there is something going on that I don't even want to know about <g>) 3D is a functionality that is added just like any other device. While it does display graphics, from the systems perspective, 3D hardware acceleration and 2D video are (for all intents and purposes) unrelated.

The major benefit this offers is complete flexibility and independence from virtually all other system devices. It can be added, removed or modified with little or no impact to the rest of the system. Also, as it provides strictly 3D processing, it costs far less than the Voodoo Rush, which offers integrated functionality. In some cases, a Voodoo Graphics-based card can cost less than half of a Voodoo Rush-based alternative. Also, because of its integrated design, future 3D upgrades to a Voodoo Rush-based card will also require a change in 2D video adapters. This kind of reinvestment can significantly increase future cost. The down-side is that it requires its own PCI slot. Just like real estate, slots are valuable assets. In and of themselves they are not expandable. If this card will occupy your last available slot, you are in for some considerable peripheral juggling (or a new motherboard) before adding another internal card. However, for systems with two or more available slots, this should be far less of a concern.

As the Voodoo Rush-based cards provide integrated 2D and 3D services, slot availability should not be a concern at all. It simply replaces an existing 2D card and occupies the same PCI slot. From its appearance, a Voodoo Rush based card appears and connects the same as a traditional 2D adapter. It also offers the chance to make an all-in-one 2D/3D upgrade at a reasonable cost. Because a Rush alternative entails 2D as well, it requires additional careful consideration. The next few paragraphs focus on these very important considerations.

The Voodoo Rush is most commonly paired with an Alliance 2D processor. The Stingray series incorporates two different design types. Some versions integrate the Voodoo directly on the video card itself, others use a "piggyback" method. Despite these architectural differences, in all significant ways, the 2D processors' performance is comparable. The 128/3D uses EDO memory. Although the product advertises 8MB of EDO memory, 4MB is reserved for 3D texturing. Therefore the 2D capabilities of the card only have practical access to 4MB. All in all EDO memory is an average performer for general 2D use. Alternatives like VRAM, WRAM, and SGRAM are faster. In terms of memory performance, it lags behind many other mainstream cards, even many "generics" that come standard as part of "brand name" configurations. The same holds true for the Alliance 2D processor. In terms of its overall 2D processing, in most configurations, its speed it is only average. However, it may outperform many older and "value-oriented" 2D graphics adapters.

In lower and less demanding resolutions, it's refresh rate and image quality are on par with most available cards. However, as image resolution and color depth increase, the Stingray begins to show signs of weakness. Its image quality begins to degrade, and the supported refresh rates drop rapidly. At 1280x1024, and especially at 1600x1200, its 180MHz RAMDAC strains to keep a flicker-free stable image. Many older cards do not even support these resolutions, and many users do not even use them on cards that can. This can be a way to affordably add higher resolution capabilities. But as larger monitors become less expensive and higher resolutions more common, good support for these resolutions can be a very important part of protecting your investment and ensuring usability. By comparison, the Matrox Millenium (I and II) Diamond Stealth models, and certain ATI adapters provide much better overall performance, especially at higher resolutions. The difference is very noticeable.

Note: While at 1600x1200, the card was incredibly unstable. This is most likely driver-related and will soon be corrected with newer drivers.

As video conferencing, video capture, and TV cards are becoming more commonplace, each typically requires some sort of interaction with the primary video adapter. These can connect internally via the feature connector, externally by patch cable, or through the system bus itself. Features such as video overlay or video inlay are critical components to a successful system solution. I was not able to get the Stingray to be compatible with any of these features at any resolution or color depth. This may be driver-related, but at this point it does not work easily or consistently.

Once should carefully consider these when choosing the Stingray, as its implications go well beyond 3D. For those with older or limited capability existing video cards or those who work at low or mid-range resolutions, the Stingray may be a good chance to upgrade 2D as well. However, the vast majority of the marketplace will ultimately make some sort of 2D sacrifice when using this card. The single largest problem this presents is the combination of a very high-end 3D processor with a very mediocre 2D processor. As the 2D video card will likely require upgrading long before the 3D, there is no way to make such an upgrade (unless the Voodoo Rush resides piggyback) without replacing the 3D portion as well. Even so, a new 2D adapter will have to support a piggyback Voodoo Rush solution to avoid reinvesting more money in another 3D processor.

None of these factors, in and of themselves make either choice a "right" solution. It simply indicates the importance of making sure that whichever solution you choose, you must consider more than just frame-rate, screen blink, or any one factor. The right choice will include the right combinations of features, performance, and long-term system integration. In this case, features and integration may come at the expense of flexibility.

3D Performance

In a side-by-side apples-to-apples comparison, the Voodoo Graphics is significantly faster. When running at 800x600x16 and full-screen, the Voodoo Graphics chipset's 3D capabilities averaged 23% faster than the Voodoo Rush. In certain situations, when the processing heavily uses alpha-blending and z-buffering, the performance difference can exceed 30%. While the end image quality was virtually identical, their frame-rate performance difference is very noticeable. With slight variations, all benchmarks and game frame-rates demonstrate similar performance differences.

While this may not be as significant on higher-end systems, it can be a night-and-day difference to mid-range computers. To slower systems, it can make the difference between being a worthwhile upgrade or not. For example, a 20 percent frame rate loss from 30fps yields 24fps. As motion picture film displays at 24fps, the difference can be negligible. However, the same loss from 18fps yields 14 to 15fps. In this range, this is much more apparent.

The primary reason for the discrepancy does not lie within the Voodoo Graphics or the Voodoo Rush chipset itself. Its implementation is the major cause. Because the Voodoo Graphics chipset resides in its own card, it shares no common components or resources with the 2D adapter. However, because the Rush coexists on the same card as its 2D processor, it shares some common resources. For example, the frame buffer, which holds the next displayable image, is shared. In fact, for virtually all functionality down-line from rendering the image, the Voodoo Rush shares resources with its companion 2D video card. This includes the frame-buffer, connector, cabling, etc. As such, this process requires negotiation and cooperation. Unfortunately, all this impacts performance. The Voodoo Graphics however, is self-contained. It uses its own frame buffer and down-line delivery resources and processing. There is no compromise.

Interestingly, even 3Dfx did not expect such an impact when it introduced the Rush. However, as these challenges lie within the architecture itself, any Voodoo Rush product is subject to the same resource-sharing bottleneck.

Conclusion

Whichever option is the best choice, virtually any solution that incorporates a variant of the 3Dfx Voodoo processor will yield very high quality images. Although both chipsets share a common heritage, it is their implementation that will make the biggest difference in choosing which solution to use. While the Voodoo Graphics chipset is the performance leader, the Voodoo Rush offers a variety of features and functionality not available from the Voodoo Graphics.

Without a complete understanding of the target system, including its purpose and long-term plans, it is impossible to make a sound and simple "this one over that one" recommendation. Depending on these factors, each variety can be equally strong or weak. It is the sum of all these factors that defines the best choice. While it is possible to compare individual features and performance specifics, any recommendation of one over the other that does not consider the entire range of factors is simply irresponsible. If such a recommendation results in a right choice, it is entirely coincidental.

In my selection of the Diamond Monster 3D, a Voodoo Graphics add-on card, I made these considerations. My goal was to provide the fastest 3D acceleration, while preserving my Matrox Millenium II for traditional graphics processing. Equally important to me is the fact that I can add, remove, or upgrade my system's 3D capabilities without significantly impacting or reinvesting in any of my other system components. I enjoy complete flexibility. These are more important to me than the Voodoo Rush's higher resolutions, 3D windowing, blink-free menu access and preserving a PCI slot. Based on these criteria, I made the right choice for me. However, as there are as many different system configurations and goals as there are uses, the Voodoo Rush will be an equally "right" for others. In the end, it is the solution that matters. In and of itself, the card is simply a means of "getting-there".

As with all else, it is best to avoid unqualified the "mine is bigger" kind of recommendations that are so prevalent. The more you understand, the better off you are.

In the words of the immortal poet-philosopher Sir Michael of Brady, "Caveat Emptor."

I hope this helps people sort through he noise and find the right 3Dfx solution. This document is also available in MS Word97 format at: http://24.1.167.192/voodo.doc

Good Luck to all.

Kindest Regards,

William R. (Bill) Hoscheit Pacific Presentation Graphics

System Configuration

CPU - Intel Pentium Pro 200MHz 512K cache Motherboard - Intel VS440FX (Venus) ATX form factor Memory - 128MB 4x32MB 60NS EDO 72-Pin SIMM modules

SCSI Subsystem

SCSI Controller - Adaptec 3940-UW PCI Ultra-Wide Multi-Channel SCSI

SCSI Devices

Channel A

Quantum Atlas-II Hard Disk 9GB 7200rpm

Channel B

Philips CD2600 2x6 CD-Recorder Pioneer DRM-624X 4x CD-ROM Changer Pioneer DR-U10X 10x CD-ROM Iomega Jaz Disk 1GB removable Iomega Zip Disk 100MB removable HP ScanJet IIcx Flatbed scanner

Other Installed Peripherals (Internal)

Sound Card - Creative Labs AWE-64 Value edition ISA Video Capture, TV and MPEG Encoder - Quadrant International Buster II PCI Network Adapter - Intel EtherExpress Pro 10+ Ethernet adapter ISA Floppy Disk - Sony 31/2" from the motherboard

Other Installed Peripherals (External)

Monitor - ViewSonic 21PS 21" .25mm dot pitch 1600x1200 Keyboard - Microsoft Natural Keyboard Mouse - Logitech Mouseman PS/2 cordless mouse Speakers - Labtec LCS 1224 Subwoofer - JVC Personal Subwoofer Printers - Panasonic KX-P4410 Laser & Star SJ-144 Color thermal wax transfer

Gaming devices

Microsoft Sidewinder Game Pad CH Products Virtual Pilot Pro CH Products Pedals Pro