By Tikkler - July 12, 2000

A week ago (okay, 2 weeks, but who's counting?), we started this two part series to guide you through your choices when it comes time to pull out the dough and get that new computer you've been drooling over. We started to explain some of the choices you had when purchasing the most fundamental components of the computer: the CPU, motherboard and the memory. If you haven’t read Part I of this guide, I suggest you do so as we'll be referring to it throughout this Part II of this guide. It's now time to get to the "extra" components such as the video card, sound card and other necessities such as the keyboard and mouse.

Video
Before we move on, I must let you know that in the video controller market, there are many, many, many key players and it would take me days and days to get through them all in detail like I had done with the CPU's from AMD and Intel. This is a general guide to showing you what's available out there on the market and if you want to know more in-depth information about these products, stay tuned 'cause sooner or later, we'll be covering products like these in detail.

When it comes to any computer these days, the first thought that pops up would be the performance and quality of the video and graphics controller. Technology has come to a point, for some time now, where computers will have to be able to handle, at a descent speed, at least some form of graphics. Even any old run-of-the-mill computer running at least Windows 95 will need to be able to handle graphics to allow the other components such as the CPU to run at highest efficiency.

Being able to handle everyday Windows tasks is one thing, but being able to handle realistic, real-time generated 3D graphics is another thing (I'm talking about games, in case you're lost). Sure, almost all new graphics controllers that you purchase these days will be able to handle the 2D graphics of Windows, but not all can render 3D graphics at usable speed, not to mention the quality of these 3D graphics; therefore, when purchasing a graphics controller, the performance of the 3D engine is the main feature we look for. Similar to the CPU world, there are basically 2 main players in the graphics battle (nVidia and 3dfx) but unlike the CPU world, there are also many others fighting for the crown of speed.

3dfx
Some of you might remember the original Voodoo 3D accelerator and how it kicked at rendering real-time 3D graphics, for that time, of course. It was the Voodoo chipset, made by 3dfx, that started the craze for 3D graphics, and it was the Voodoo chipset that started the rapid development of the graphics controller in the 3D world. The Voodoo chipset is the grandfather of all 3D accelerators and should be remembered as such. So, what did 3dfx do to make it memorable? They introduced the famous Voodoo2 line of 3D accelerators, which, in the minds of those who bought that chipset, has a very good performance and can even run today's 3D games at descent speed and at a descent resolution.

During that time, 3dfx’s main competitors, ATI and nVidia had released products to compete with the Voodoo line of chipsets, but their products had a major advantage over 3dfx's counterparts: they supported 32-bit rendering of 3D scenes. Before these products were released, all 3D graphics were rendered in either 8 or 16-bit, which did seem sufficient... for that time. That's the main reason why 3dfx decided not to include 32-bit rendering in their new line of Voodoo3 products, which perform extremely well at 16-bit resolution, mind you. They claimed that performance would drop to an unacceptable level if they had included 32-bit rendering in their Voodoo3 products, so they decided not to include 32-bit 3D rendering at all, spurring a huge debate about whether it was necessary to have the 32-bit rendering in these graphics controllers. NVidia, however, proved them to be wrong when they released their famed TNT2 chipset, which was capable of rendering in 32-bit with just a slight performance drop.

Now, we have finally reached the time when 3dfx has released their next-generation video controllers. Dubbed the Voodoo4 and Voodoo5, 3dfx has stuck with its successful Voodoo name to build an incredible video controller. The new Voodoo4/5 solutions by 3dfx use their new VSA-100 chip, which allows for unprecedented scalability. These new VSA-100 chips are capable of being placed side by side on the same board, which allows 3dfx to create new, higher performance solutions just by using the exact same chips. For example, the Voodoo4 4500 has one VSA-100 chip, which allows it to have a theoretical fill rate of 333 megapixels per second, incredible by itself. The Voodoo5 5500 uses 2 of these chips and 64MB of DDR memory (explained below), which allows it to have a theoretical fill rate of 667 megapixels per second. The Voodoo5 6000, which is slewed for release very soon, will have 4 (!) of these chips, allowing it to have a theoretical fill rate of 1.3 gigapixels per second. Without a doubt, these are powerful solutions from 3dfx, and all of these now support 32-bit 3D rendering.

NVidia
With 3dfx powering the market with their Voodoo2 line of products, a new company called nVidia was ready to shock the world with their new powerful alternative, the TNT. The TNT was an impressive solution, but it didn't have enough to overpower the Voodoo2, so, nVidia came up with the TNT-128. A variant of the TNT, the TNT-128 just had enough to gain an edge on the Voodoo2, and became the 3D champion in terms of performance for the market. Then came the oh, so impressive TNT2 line of chipsets, which jetted nVidia to first place in the graphics controller market. The TNT2 had extreme performance for rendering 3D graphics, and, unlike its main competitor, the Voodoo3, it included support for 32-bit rendering. With this new chipset, nVidia took over the once 3dfx-dominated market for itself, winning the hearts and cash of millions, including myself.

Then came the GeForce256 "GPU" (Graphics Processing Unit) which took the market by storm. 3dfx was still in the labs developing their Voodoo4/5 line of products, so they had no line of defense for the GeForce. Coupled with a controversial hardware Transform and Lighting engine, which takes load off of CPU's when playing a game that supported it, the GeForce was now the clear leader in the graphics market and brought nVidia to the top of the world. The GeForce started out by using SDR memory (Singe Data Rate), which proved not to have enough the power for this GPU. As such, manufacturers began coupling the GeForce with DDR memory (Double Data Rate) which allows the processing of data on both the rising and declining edge of the clock, therefore doubling the transfer from the memory (this works much like the Athlon's 200MHz DDR bus). Coupled with this new speedy memory, the "new" GeForce now spanked the Voodoo3 with ease and continued to drive nVidia to success.

NVidia wanted more. Released about a month ago, the GeForce2 GTS comes with a second-generation hardware T&L engine, an improved rendering engine and, most importantly, power that nobody could ever imagine out of a graphics controller. Compared to the Voodoo5 6000 from 3dfx, which, in fact, has not been seen anywhere on store shelves yet and has a theoretical fill rate of 1.3 gigapixels per second, the GeForce2 GTS has a fill rate of an incredible 1.6 gigapixels per second. That's enough power to run Quake 3 at 1600x1200x32 at more than 40 frames per second. Ladies and gentleman, we have a new performance winner!

I'm not being biased here, but comparing raw processing power between the GeForce2 GTS and the Voodoo5 5500, which is 3dfx's best offering as of this moment, I must say that nVidia continues to kick 3dfx in the rear. It's quite simple… numbers tell the truth. All benchmark results found all over the 'net indicate that the GeForce2 is a more powerful processor, and I have no intentions of going against them.

The Other Guys
First up is ATI. Let me tell you the truth here, ATI really does not have a competitive solution on the market as of this moment. Their Rage128 and Rage128 Pro chipsets are pretty much very slow chipsets compared to the powerhouses offered by nVidia and 3dfx. 3D performance is terrible with these chipsets and is without a doubt only for those who do very light gaming. What these chipsets do the best, however, is not 3D performance, but in video and DVD playback. These 2 chipsets have built-in DVD decoders in the chipsets, which none of the offerings that nVidia and 3dfx have (they do, however, include software DVD decoding, which is "almost" good). So, if you're looking for an all-around good video controller with fair gaming performance, excellent 2D performance and second to none video and DVD playback, then the Rage128 and Rage 128 Pro are for you.

Next up is S3/Diamond. S3 was actually the first to invent the "3D accelerator," but instead of their Virge chipsets to be a true "3D accelerator" chipset, it was eventually known as the "3D decelerator" because of the extremely poor performance (we all know that 3dfx eventually perfected the invention and then nVidia perfected it even more). S3, however, does have a few chipsets out of the market currently that do act as low-cost alternatives. The Savage4 chipset is at the really low-end spectrum, and provides poor 3D performance, but is a cheap chipset and is worth a look if you're looking to save a few bucks here and there. I would, however, recommend ATI's Rage128 solution as the 3D performance is identical, but the Rage128 is better for other things such as DVD and video playback. As a low-cost alternative for the GeForce256, S3 has the Savage2000. On paper, this chipset looks to be identical in performance as the GeForce256, but in real life, it comes quite a bit short. Performance is descent in 3D acceleration and should be a consideration if you don't want to spend quite as much for a GeForce256.

Last up, we have Matrox. These guys have a nice chipset called the G400. Its 3D performance is on par with nVidia's older TNT2 chipset (which is quite descent to for casual gaming), but where it really stands out is the fact that it has dual-monitor support. It is one of the few video controllers in computing history that implement 2 monitor outs so to allow for dual-monitor support under Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000 using only 1 card. If you want to set up a dual-monitor, don't care about running Quake 3 at 1600x1200x32 and don't want to shed out too much money to buy 2 video cards (and save a PCI slot as well), then the G400 is for you. Matrox also has a newer, and faster, G450 lined up for release within a few weeks or months, so keep an eye on that as well.

On to: Video - Continued