I've seen the benchmarks, but I've also seen a discrepancy between the benchmarks of sites that I regularly use.  Normally I wouldn't question the performance between AGP and PCI versions of the same part, but the VSA-100 chips of the Voodoo5 do not support AGP texturing, one of the main speed advantages of the AGP bus.

Anandtech shows the cards performing nearly identically, with the PCI slower by a couple frames, at most, in only instance.
Firingsquad, on the other hand, shows the PCI lagging behind the AGP by over fifteen percent in many instances.

They both used 98SE and the same drivers, final official drivers v1.01.00.  Anandtech used an Athlon 750, 128MB PC133 SDRAM, and a 20GB 7200 RPM HDD; Firingsquad used a PIII 750E, 128MB PC100 SDRAM, and a 20GB 7200 RPM HDD.  These are fairly comparable systems.  Both included the same demo of Q3: Arena in their benchmarks using the same resolutions (although I'm unsure what quality the Anandtech benchmarks used).

I can only think of one thing that might explain the discrepancy between benchmarking efforts.  Anandtech points out that if a previous 3dfx card in your system was not uninstalled properly (with the previous 3D adapter left behind, incorrectly identifying your new Voodoo5 5500 PCI as "3dfx Voodoo Series"), your performance can be significantly reduced.  Perhaps Firingsquad did not uninstall their previous 3dfx cards properly.

Would anyone be interested in benchmarking both the PCI and AGP versions of the Voodoo5 5500 on the same hardware?

C.Zoui wrote on 05.02.09 at 05:23:26:


The AGP bus does run at 66 mhz vs the PCI bus 33 mhz.

Narmounet wrote on 05.02.09 at 09:16:15:


Thanks.  These results, achieved using similar hardware and drivers to the first ones I listed, are consistent with Anandtech's results showing virtually-identical PCI and AGP performance.


Thandor wrote on 05.02.09 at 14:42:50:


Thanks!  With different drivers and faster hardware, I'd still have to say that your results are more consistent with Anandtech's than Firingsquad's.

Btw, the catalog of cards you've benchmarked is impressive.  I really appreciate how you've included Voodoo2 12MB SLI benchmarks too.  I've always been curious how they would compare to a Voodoo5 5500.  The layout of your site is also gorgeous.


gdonovan wrote on 05.02.09 at 11:57:36:


True.  But I don't see anything in any real game benchmarks that shows the PCI bus running into a 133MB/s 'wall' of saturation with the PCI Voodoo5 5500.

@Thandor

Really nice site

But one more thing would also be interesting - try running V5 5500 PCI in a nice, (almost) brand new C2D or quad core overclocked CPU and add it on top of the pile, just to see how much juice can we really squeeze out of V5. It would also be interesting how many points would it bring in 3d mark 2001SE, with software pixel shading (swiftshader).

Does a quad core CPU allows V5 to run nature demo in a playable FPS?

I'm not into the latest unofficial  3dfx drivers. Last time I ran AmigaMerlin (and several others) I noticed a huge performance drop on my Athlon 700. Not to mention lower game compatibility as SoF didn't run correctly. Although the newer drivers need a faster PC I'm not sure how much the graphics card renders. I don't like putting benchmarks online in which the CPU is doing the work instead of the GPU (if this would be the case of course).

When I have time I'll give the Voodoo5 5500 a go in a faster system with the 3dfx drivers and the unofficial drivers. Let's see what it would be like and how the drivers respond. I can test the Voodoo5 5500AGP in a Core 2 Quad Q6600. The PCI would be doable in a Q6600 @ 3,2GHz or higher. Drivers for '98 might be difficult, indeed.

if i can find a good Mainboard i test all the Voodoo5 cards

Voodoo5 AGP @ AGP
Voodoo5 AGP @ PCI
Voodoo5 AGP @ PCI66
Voodoo5 PCI @ PCI
Voodoo5 PCI @ PCI66
and if the Mainboard can run the 6k.....

only problem is to find a Mainboard with 3,3Vagp and a PCI66 Slot
the only one PCI66 Mainboard i have at the moment is the baord from the Mercury and AAlchemy systems but on 1GHz the CPU limiteds too much

elfuego wrote on 15.02.09 at 11:04:46:
As we speak I'm installing Windows on my ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA system. This motherboard will fit a 5500PCI and should be able to run a Q6600 as well.

I'm installing both Windows 2000 and XP. Have to set it up, take images of the partitions, find time, and stuff. But one day or another I can test it .

Thandor wrote on 15.02.09 at 20:02:26:

And now it's going to take a little longer because my motherboard died  .