Eight different chipsets, 4 tests, 3 resolutions, 2 processors, 1 winner...
...all on a Socket-7 Motherboard

"Out with the old and in with the new, it is this spring cleaning attitude that drives the markets we so dearly scrutinize during every minute of our dedicated hobby time.  When referring to the newest automobiles, the latest fashion trends, or even the most popular music, parting with the old and heading towards the world of the new is relatively easy and painless (unless, of course, you have that pair of 70's style socks you just can't bring yourself to get rid of).   Unfortunately, many of us are blessed with a hobby that not only changes at a rate barely faster than the market can handle, but at the same time, a hobby whose maintenance costs prohibit the mindless process of trial and error when it comes to which parts to add to your collection.  

The hobby in question is none other than that associated with being a PC hardware enthusiast.  While the title itself seems good enough to qualify as a previous employer entry on a job application, a hardware enthusiast usually has to face the facts and utter the phrase "out with the old and in with the new" every now and then; and when that time comes, the wallet is the first to suffer.   In looking towards the new, we usually forget about the differences between the new and the old, and since the budget of the average hardware enthusiast doesn't include the cost of every single product on the market, a roundup of all products up to the current generation is necessary  to keep in touch with the past while concentrating on the present.

In this particular case, one of the most rapidly evolving factions of PC hardware, Video Accelerators, have become the topic for much discussion among enthusiasts and casual users alike.  What card is best for me?   What are the real differences between all of the next generation chipsets?   And the most frequently asked question, what kind of performance improvements can I expect over my current video card?"

...and so began the AnandTech October 1998 Video Accelerator Comparison as the best of the best as well as the previous champs were ready to go head to head in the Slot-1 world of the Pentium II and the Celeron.   Unfortunately, money doesn't grow on trees, and not all of us can afford high end Pentium II systems, the low-cost alternative?  No, not the cacheless Celeron or the overclocker's dream, the Celeron A, rather the long since forgotten, Socket-7 platform.   If nVidia, 3Dfx, S3, and Matrox are all they really claim to be, they should be able to succeed in any situation, right?  Wrong. 

As you're about to find out, the giants of the industry are about to get a dose of reality in three dimensions when AnandTech explores the past, the present and the future of 3D gaming on Socket-7 systems.  Without further ado, let's get started with a little refresher on the areas for judging a video accelerator...

Why should Super7, or Socket-7 users have to limit their choices for a video accelerator just because of the way you plug your CPU into the motherboard?  You shouldn't.  Unfortunately, there is very little stability in the way Super7 chipsets handle next generation graphics accelerators.   As the tests AnandTech conducted have been able to prove however, it is possible to run any of the chipsets reviewed here on a Super7 motherboard (with the exception of the S3 Savage3D) using the currently released reference drivers, and the latest patches from your chipset manufacturer.  This can hold true for all Super7 and Socket-7 AGP chipset manufacturers, however ALi (www.ali.com.tw) based motherboards may experience some troubles which will be corrected in future AGP driver releases from Acer Labs themselves.  You want to make sure that you have all of the latest drivers and patches installed for your chipset and graphics card before proceeding to install any next generation video accelerator in your Super7 system, and it is always best to make a fresh install from scratch rather than copying new video drivers over those remaining from a separate hardware configuration.

What to look for in a Graphics Accelerator

• Acceleration Strengths - What sort of acceleration do you primarily need?   While a card may offer excellent 3D acceleration there are some out there that need more than the ability to run Quake 2 at unbelievable speeds. 

• API Support - Glide, Direct3D, and OpenGL.  Those are the three major Application Programming Interfaces (API's) you'll see present in the 3D world, while only 3Dfx cards support the least used Glide API Direct3D and OpenGL support are provided for with virtually any card/chipset.   If OpenGL is something you're looking forward to having outstanding performance under, then make sure that the card you're after has full OpenGL support now with an OpenGL Installable Client Driver (ICD) available for download. 

• Chipset Support - Check the newsgroups, email the manufacturers, post to Bulletin Boards (the AnandTech BBS is perfect for that)...will the graphics accelerator you're looking for work with the chipset on your motherboard?   Ask around, see if any users have made an upgrade similar to the one you're planning and milk them for information.  What troubles (if any) did they have?   How did they perform the upgrade?  Were there any conflicts or troubleshooting steps taken to resolve any issues with the card and a component in their system?  An informed buyer is a successful buyer.

• Drivers & 3DNow! - Make sure that the manufacturer of your next-generation graphics accelerator won't leave you in the dark when the time to upgrade your drivers comes around.  Keep track of all driver updates made to manufacturer websites and be sure to keep communication lines open between yourself and the manufacturer (that's what email is for).  For you K6-2 users, you may want to lean towards a graphics accelerator chipset that has either current or planned support for AMD's 3DNow! instructions in their drivers.  The tests AnandTech conducted with the performance impact of proper 3DNow! utilization in drivers illustrated up to a 50% gain in performance using optimized 3DNow! drivers vs regularly shipping drivers.  Among others, 3Dfx, 3DLabs, Matrox and nVidia have either announced or currently have drivers out that support the AMD 3DNow! instructions.

• Interface & Card Length - Two very important factors in purchasing a graphics accelerator, the Bus Interface and the physical length of the card.  For PCI cards, you must make sure that you have at least one open PCI slot that can accommodate the physical length of the card.  Voodoo2 accelerators, for example, require full-length PCI slots due to their incredible length.   Unfortunately those are luxuries denied to most AT-Super7 motherboard owners, in which case an AGP accelerator becomes more attractive especially since PCI slots are quickly increasing in scarcity among upgraders.

• Performance & Scalability - Unlike the Pentium II/Celeron platform where just about every graphics accelerator cranks out around 60 fps in Quake 2, Super7 users have to be a bit more sacrificial when it comes to performance.  With the exception of the high-end K6-2 users, most Super7 owners will discover that performance quickly begins to level out among the competition and you'll quickly find yourself tangled in a web of non-performance based comparison.  Keep in mind that you want to squeeze every last bit of performance out of your system though, and if you're planning to upgrade to a faster processor in your system, you'll want to pick up a graphics accelerator that scales well with processor speed.

• Refresh Rates & Integrated RAMDAC - If you have a 14" monitor and don't have any plans on upgrading your monitor in the near future then you should probably skip this section.  For those of you that have either taken advantage of or are planning to take advantage of the rock bottom prices on 17" monitors or for those of you that simply have the budget for a 21" monitor, then you will want to pay close attention to the supported Refresh Rates and Integrated RAMDAC of any graphics accelerator you purchase.  The rule of thumb here, the higher the better, it is as simple as that.  Remember that when outputting video you must take the digital data stored in your video memory or RAM and send it down your VGA cable to your monitor.  However monitors, in spite of what you may think, do not receive information in digital bits since they are analog devices.   In order to convert the digital signal from the RAM to an analog signal the monitor can use a RAMDAC (Random Access Memory Digital-Analog Converter) is present on the video card itself.  The faster a RAMDAC the better the 2D image quality you see on your monitor will be.  Expect most RAMDAC's to fall in the 200MHz - 250MHz with 230MHz as the sweet spot for most users.

• Rendering Capabilities - Need to be able to render in a window rather than a full screen application?  Look into the specifications of the graphics chipset you're considering and ask yourself: does it allow for a 32-bit internal accuracy for rendering calculations?  Does it support 32-bpp rendering?  Is color expansion optional in the future with this chipset, and what sort of performance hit will result if such an expansion is initiated?

• Resolutions & Video Memory - If you have an ideal resolution in mind, one you would like to run all of your games at as well as another you wish to keep your windows desktop at you need to make sure that the video card you're purchasing has enough memory (or a large enough frame buffer in the case of 3D accelerators) to accommodate for the resolution.  The once sought after 640 x 480 gaming resolution is now a thing of the past, you should accept no 3D accelerator that doesn't allow for 800 x 600 support, and provided that the performance is decent, support for higher 3D resolutions such as 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1024 can be desired as well.   Just remember that your monitor must also be able to handle the resolutions you're aiming for, 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768 are pretty much supported on all monitors (even 14" monitors have 1024 x 768 support) however once you break 1024 x 768 you may want to start looking for a 17" or larger screen. 

• Texture Units - A key to continued levels of high performance in future gaming titles will lie in the ability of a card to process textures in an efficient and effective manner.  Currently, the most popular way of achieving this effective and efficient is by offering two separate texture units, each of which capable of processing a single texture - paving the way for high performance under multi-textured gaming situations where a single texture is overlapped by the presence of another one.

• TV-Output - The world of TV-Output has matured tremendously since the days when ATI's 3DXpression+ dominated the boards with its "crisp and clear" TV-Output.  Companies have already begun pushing the limits of TV-Output to previously unheard of degrees, Matrox's Mystique G200 supports a TV-Out resolution of up to 1024 x 768.  If you have a large enough TV in the area where your computer will reside, then you may want to give TV-Output another look, for the first time.

• Once again, there's price...and once again, it's on to the roundup.

The following cards/chipsets were absent from the test and will be added at a later time:

Test Configuration

This review consisted of benchmarks on Socket-7 processors only, for the Slot-1 performance of these chipsets visit the October 1998 Video Accelerator Comparison Guide here on AnandTech.

The Super7 Socket-7 AGP Test System AnandTech used was configured as follows:

CPU's
		AMD K6/200
		AMD K6-2 300
		Intel Pentium MMX 200
Motherboard
		FIC PA-2013 (VIA MVP3 Chipset)
Memory
		64MB Mushkin SEC PC100 SDRAM
CD-ROM Drive
		AOpen 32X IDE CD-ROM Drive
Operating System
		Microsoft Windows 98
Benchmarking Software (full versions)
	Direct3D
			Forsaken Nuke Demo
	OpenGL
			Unreal FPSTimedemo
			SiN Rocket Demo - 3Fingers
			Quake 2 Demo1 & Crusher Demo - 3Fingers

VSYNC was disabled during AnandTech's tests (VSYNC is the synchronization of all buffer swaps to the refresh rate of your monitor, theoretically limiting the attainable frame rate by the refresh rate your monitor is set at. Disabling it will improve performance but may degrade visual quality by introducing "tearing")

All video cards/chipsets were run using their respective manufacturer's reference drivers.

For the in-depth gaming performance tests Brett "3 Fingers" Jacobs Crusher.dm2 demo was used to simulate the worst case scenario in terms of Quake 2 performance, the point at which your frame rate will rarely drop any further. In contrast, the demo1.dm2 demo was used to simulate the ideal situation in terms of Quake 2 performance, the average high point for your frame rate in normal play. The range covered by the two benchmarks can be interpreted as the range in which you can expect average frame rates during gameplay.

At the time of publication, the Matrox G200 OpenGL ICD was not available and therefore the G200 ran the Unreal Benchmark in Direct3D and no OpenGL tests were run on the G200. Matrox expects a full ICD by November for the G200 chipset.

Click on Images to Enlarge 640 x 480 Pentium MMX 200 K6/200 K6-2 300 800 x 600 Pentium MMX 200 K6/200 K6-2 300

Click on Images to Enlarge