To test F-15, the most simple and consistent solution that provided a balanced graphics/CPU load was to test framerate while sitting still on the runway in the "Takeoff and Navigate" training mission. Jane's F-15 shows a very significant improvement on the P3D2 over the P3D - averaging just shy of a 20% framerate gain. Perhaps this is because the bitmapped cockpit likely benefits considerably from the improved fillrate.

In F-15's virtual cockpit, the difference is a little subtler, running just over 15% improvement. The average boost of switching to the Pure3D2 in Jane's F-15 is about equal to getting a 66MHz faster CPU.

Unfortunately, the framerate counter in Flying Corps was designed with older, slower computers in mind, and the way it works makes it less accurate the faster your machine runs. Nevertheless it was possible to create a (admittedly crude) picture of how its performance is affected by the variables of computer and 3d card speed.

Ok, so the improvement is significant, but it's not the stunning improvement that Voodoo Graphics was over software rendering. So what about all the hype about that legendary Voodoo2 power? Well, at the risk of beating the point into the ground, it's all in the fillrate. The 2.5x improved fill means you could theoretically run the Pure3d2 in 800x600 and still complete two rendering passes in the time it takes Pure3d to make a single pass in 640x480. That's nothing to sneeze at.

But what's the advantage of having multiple rendering passes? For comparison, take an expert scale model painter. Such painters go through a number of layers and phases to paint an exceptionally realistic model. A typical layering scheme may look like primer, colors, gloss coat, weathering, and finally highlighting.

In a similar fashion, multiple passes can improve the visual richness of the objects in a rendered image, as fans of Unreal have begun to discover. Detail texturing, environment mapping, and light maps are among the features that have similarities to the model painter's layers - but the potential goes even beyond this. Detail texturing can improve the look of virtual cockpits, runways, and vehicles without requiring unusually large texturemaps.

Environment mapping could be potentially used to accurately show reflections on glossy or transparent surfaces - possibly even including heat shimmering effects from afterburners or hot engine decks. Light mapping has many possible uses, especially in the explosions department. There are many more possible ways to put it to good use. But alas, this technology has not yet been applied to simulations.

Since no current simulations use multiple rendering passes, and sims are more likely than not to stick to traditional single-pass rendering techniques, it may prove difficult for sims to tap all the potential of the Pure3D2. However, there are a couple ways to put that extra fillrate to use that don't involve multiple passes.

For example, if you have the cash to spare, buying two cards for an SLI setup will allow using the extra fill for truly exceptional speed at 1024x768. Theoretically, Canopus or another Voodoo2 vendor could have included a larger frame buffer to allow normal use of 1024x768 on even a single Voodoo 2, but the framerate would have suffered.

The real kicker for sim players will be those sims that are keenly optimized for Glide 3. Its new features promise to make far more efficient use of both your CPU and the Voodoo2 chipset by (among other things) cutting the number of calculations your CPU has to handle for geometry transform nearly in half - and this is where the Pure3D2 should totally eclipse its predecessor.

Click to continue . . .

This perhaps begs the question - is making the switch right for you, the sim player? The answer (as is so often the case) is that "it depends." If you are new to 3D acceleration, can afford quality computer gear, and don't own a hot accelerator card yet, then the Pure3D2 is a card that will grow with your system, rather than hold it back. If you already have a 300MHz (or faster) Pentium II, then it makes an excellent upgrade choice - you'll get a speed boost similar to a 50 to 66MHz CPU upgrade right away with even more potential waiting in the wings.

As for slower computers, even the lowly Celeron 266/66 gets a decent boost, but it starts to show signs of diminshing returns (so to speak). Below that, the difference is likely to be truly marginal.

As for K6 and Cyrix owners, it would seem that their reputation for inferior floating point performance will hurt their ability to utilize any Voodoo2 board, but a K6-2 running a 3D Now!-enhanced program just might be able to do the trick. It would be interesting to find out if this is indeed true. (AMD, are you listening? ;)

So perhaps you've decided by now that it's worth making the jump, but at $329, the cost of the P3D2 is prohibitive. 8 MB Voodoo 2's are available for much less, and you've probably heard about off-brands charging cut-rate prices for the 12MB boards. In light of such competition, is the Pure3D2 the best Voodoo2 solution?

To begin, gamers would be advised to discount 8MB boards right off the bat. There are already several available Glide sims that make use of the extra texture memory in the 12MB boards (and D3D games use the extra memory automatically, anyhow) and future games are only going to use larger and larger textures. Are you dreaming of those incredible screenshots of Su-27 Flanker 2? You can't even pretend to get close to that on an 8MB board.

There's just not much point in buying a new card with the old amount of usable texture RAM. An 8MB board may benchmark nearly as fast as a 12MB board, but outside of the limited scope of benchmarking programs texture sizes will tend to run wild. Consider that running short means that textures will have to be swapped from system RAM - such systems will definitely stutter more in heavily detailed areas.

One other thing that's very important to consider in a Voodoo2 board is reliability. Canopus has outfitted the P3D2 with 100MHz-rated RAM, giving motherboard and 3d card overclockers a little less risk of potential problems from pushing the limits of their systems. Concerns with the competition's reference design boards have occasionally been raised about possible overheating, and in one case a cut-rate vendor was even accused of using below-spec RAM to leverage a price advantage.

While it would be difficult to assess exactly how accurate those allegations are, the simple fact remains that our P3D2 test board has proved rock-steady despite even the most extreme system overclocking and residing in a system running 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

As far as 12MB boards go, the Pure3D2 cannot win over the competition by pure performance like the Pure3D could. The extra overclocking ability granted by the fan doesn't give a significant speed edge in any measured aspect in the tests. So you're not going to be going any faster than the competition despite the extra $30 to $80 you may be spending.

On the other hand, the advantages not strictly related to performance are numerous: the TV-Out with composite and S-Video outputs, the compact, installation-friendly form factor, the convenience of the well designed control panel, brilliant "adjust on the fly" Quick Control and Application Launcher, improved passthrough, and steady reliability.

Furthermore, in the event that you're willing to forego the fan and TV-Out, the Pure3D2LX is otherwise the same card for about $50 less. These factors contribute to make the Pure3D2/2LX the discerning choice for gamers seeking the most refined Voodoo2 solution on the market.