3dfx Voodoo3

The most commonly overlooked feature of a video card is its 2D quality. While most users don't have 19" and 21" monitors, simply because of the incredible cost of such displays, there are some out there that are less than pleased with the 2D output of their video cards at high resolutions. As taken from the AnandTech Number Nine Revolution IV Review, here's a quick primer on the controversy behind 2D image quality:

Since its release, nVidia's TNT chipset has become a little more than a 2D/3D card for gamers.  It seems as if the TNT is being crammed down everyone's throat, even if they have no intention of touching a frame of Quake 2 or even picking up the crowbar in Half-Life.  Now, the TNT is a fairly affordable graphics solution considering it is a 2D/3D combo card, and its success is good news for nVidia.  Being a successful chipset isn't a bad thing, where the TNT does get a bad reputation is when someone with a 21" monitor unravels the TNT's dark secret and tries to run their card at 1600 x 1200 x 32bpp at a high refresh rate under Windows.  Look around the newsgroups, ask TNT owners, or try it for yourself, the TNT as well as many other 2D/3D combo cards don't provide the best 2D image quality when it comes to driving large monitors (i.e. 21") at high resolutions.  The most common occurrence being that when viewing black text on a white background (or vise versa), the characters will begin to seem a bit fuzzy, and, especially after hours of staring at the screen, your eyes will begin to feel the wrath of a poorly constructed card. 

Keep in mind that this scenario only really affects those with larger monitors running at resolutions above 1024 x 768 (most likely above 1280 x 1024).  The assumption being made here by most manufacturers is that their customers won't use their products for professional purposes (i.e. intensive image editing, publishing, etc...) and as long as their 2D quality and performance is top notch at resolutions under 1280 x 1024 at refresh rates under 75Hz (which most users do tend to stay under, simply due to monitor sizes refresh rate limitations), they'll be perfectly fine.  This holds true in a great percentage of the cases, which is why you'll hear people saying that the 2D image quality on the TNT or on the Savage3D is "top-notch" or "beautiful."  However, when you happen to push your TNT card to the limits at 1600 x 1200, or when you give the Savage3D a run for its money at the same resolution, and you see some "fuzzy" text, it's quite difficult to believe that just about every single TNT/Savage3D owner out there could be wrong in saying that the 2D image quality is astounding...but in your case, they are. 

The reason behind this is simple, in order to cut costs, the amount of filters placed between the analog VGA output on your video card and the RAMDAC are cut down to the bare minimum.  This sacrifice is made simply because of the assumption made above. The RAMDAC on a video card is the device that converts the digital signal from the local graphics memory (RAM) and converts it into an analog signal for the monitor using a Digital Analog Converter (DAC) since most displays are in fact analog devices, with the exception of a relative few digital LCD displays (not all LCD displays are digital, in fact, most are analog as well). The speed of the RAMDAC is a defining factor in how crisp the 2D quality of your video card is.

Since most of these cards will be used for 3D games, and since there isn't a next-generation 2D/3D combo card out there capable of running any 3D game at 1600 x 1200 in a high performing fashion, most manufacturers figure that it's better to keep costs low and satisfy a greater percentage of the population than increase the costs to satisfy a smaller percentage.  That is the unfortunate truth, however if you're a gamer, using a 15" or maybe even a 17" monitor, chances are that you'd rather pay $130 for a card that suits your needs instead of paying $160 for a card that suits your needs as well as your neighbor with a 21" monitor.  At the same time, if you put yourself in the shoes of your neighbor with the 21" monitor, chances are that your neighbor would rather pay $160 for a card that does everything they need it to do rather than pay $130 for a card of noticeably lesser quality. 

It all depends on your perspective as a consumer, and instead of allowing users to have two options (a professional and a home use version) most manufacturers will go after the "one-size fits all" market and hope to succeed. In terms of 2D quality, the Voodoo3 is definitely top-notch, almost on level with that of the Matrox G200, and depending on your eyes in particular, you may not be able to notice any difference between the 2D quality on a Voodoo3 and on a Millennium G200. 3dfx definitely did a good job with making sure that the 2D quality of the Voodoo3 was up to par with the expectations of the market.