3Dgaming logo

support our sponsors

 

4th Generation 3D Chipsets Feature Chart


Last Updated on 10/13/98 by Jack Frost
My disclaimer

This chart may be difficult for some to read due to its very large size. It is best seen at high resolutions (I recommend 1024x768 or 1152x864). I felt it best to get all the information side by side, I hope you agree.
I did not get all of the information I intended to for this chart.  I'm sorry about that, but since I have sat on this information for about 1 year now, I thought it best that I at least post it in some form.  So here you go!

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
  3DGaming's Chipset Comparison Main Page
All chipset have the following Features:
Next Generation chipsets 3Dfx Voodoo 3
(2000 / 3000)		 3DLabs Permidia 3 ATI Rage Fury Matrox G400 NEC/VideoLogic
Neon 250
(PVRNG)		 Nvidia TNT2 S3 Savage 4  
Fab size (in Microns) .25  ? .25   .25 .25 .25  
Internal Clock 125 / 183Mhz   ?     125Mhz 90Mhz 125Mhz  
Memory Clock 125 / 183Mhz  ? 143MHz   125Mhz 90Mhz 125Mhz  
Peak 3D Triangle Million per second
Claimed 7m
4m		  2m 4m   4m 9m 8m  
(Click here for details on the benchmark figures.)
Fill Rate 90 Mpps  110Mpps   120 Mpps 300 Mpps 125 Mpps  
Max 3D Resolution at 16bit 1600x1200  1900x1280 1600x1200   1600x1200 1600x1200 1600x1200  
Max 3D Resolution at 32bit N/A   1900x1280 1600x1200   1600x1200 1600x1200 1280x1024  
Memory support 6/8/12mb  32mb  4/8/16/32mb   4/8/16/32mb 4/8/16/32mb 2/4/8/16/32mb  
API Support Direct3D, OpenGL, Glide   Direct3D, OpenGL Direct3D, OpenGL  Direct3D, OpenGL Direct3D, OpenGL, PowerSGL Direct3D, OpenGL Direct3D, OpenGL  

3D Features
Features 3Dfx Voodoo 3
(2000 / 3000)		 3DLabs Permidia 3 ATI Rage Fury Matrox G400 NEC/VideoLogic
Neon 250
(PVRNG)		 Nvidia TNT2 S3 Savage 4  
Compatibility with 3D WinBench's Quality Test 37/41   ?     41/41 32/41 40/41  
TextureBlend Support
Adaptive MIP mapping No  Yes  ?   Yes No No  
Anistropic Filtering No   ? ?   Yes Yes Yes  
Bump Mapping Yes   Yes Yes

Yes 

 Yes Yes Yes  
Reflection Maps Yes   ?   No Yes Yes  
Environment maps ?   ? ?   Yes Yes Yes  
Procedural Textures No   ?   Yes No No  
Stencil Buffering No   ?   ? ? ?  
Depth buffering (16-bit) Yes  ?    No Yes Yes  
LOD biasing ?   ? Yes   ? ? ?  
Sub-pixel and sub-texel accurate positioning No  ?    Yes Yes Yes  
Texture modulation Yes   ?   Yes Yes Yes  
Maximum color depth of textures 16bit   32bit 32bit

 32bit

 32bit 32bit 32bit  
Single-pass multiple textures Yes   Yes Yes   Yes Yes Yes  
Texture compositing, morphing, animation Yes   ? ?   No Yes Yes  
Z-Buffer 16bit   32bit 32bit

 32bit

 32bit 32bit 24bit  
Extra Features:

These Features may not be found on all boards even if the chipset supports it.
Features 3Dfx Voodoo 3
(2000 / 3000)		 3DLabs Permidia 3 ATI Rage Fury Matrox G400 NEC/VideoLogic
Neon 250
(PVRNG)		 Nvidia TNT 2 S3 Savage 4  
AGP Bus Supported 2x w/ sidebanding    2x 4x w/ sidebanding

 4x

 2x w/ Side banding 2x w/ sidebanding 4x w/ sidebanding  
Hardware DVD Support Playback No   No Motion Comp & IDCT

 No

 No No Motion Comp  
Video In/out Ports Available Yes   ?   N/A Yes Yes  
Flat Panel Support Yes   ? Yes   No Yes Yes  

2D Related Features
Features 3Dfx Voodoo 3
(2000 / 3000)		 3DLabs Permidia 3 ATI Rage Fury Matrox G400 NEC/VideoLogic
Neon 250
(PVRNG)		 Nvidia TNT 2 S3 Savage 4  
Maximum Display Size N/A     1920x1440 at 65Hz 2048x1536 1600x1200  
Ramdac 300 / 350 300MHz   ?   250 300 230  
Dual Monitor Support No  No No  Yes No No No  

This Table is a not designed to be a comparison table for ALL 3D chipsets. This table is designed to list the the current top of the line consumer oriented 3D gaming chipsets.

The benchmark figures are based on using DirectX 6 and are estimates only from either personal testing, testing from insiders within the industry, or from the companies themselves.  You can see all the results that 3Dgaming has obtained ourselves at FPS's Benchmarks section.

 

 

Currently there are a few honorable mentions that don't quite make the cut; although, I am certainly willing to listen to any arguments. I'm sure some of the chipsets not mentioned are good quality chips, but they are either not yet released and proven, are too slow to be a serious contenders, or have limitations that prohibit a realistic 3D feel (for instance chips that lack the required features at the top of the list.)

There may be some errors on this comparison chart. If you find any please e-mail me and let me know. Also feel free to ask me questions, or provide me with any information to add to this or other pages.

Thanks,
Jack