WickedPC heeft een review van de 3Dfx V3-3000 gepost. Ze hebben ook een plak info over 32-bit vs 16-bit (lijkt me wel handige info, ook ivm de reacties op deze newsposting):
The Voodoo2 was plagued by great performance, yet lower visuals than its competitor, the TNT. The TNT had better visual quality in games, but lacked the high framerates. This is where the TNT gets put to shame by the Voodoo3. Although the Voodoo3 does not do 32bpp rendering, its 16bpp rendering was great. Personally, I don't think 16bpp makes much of a difference over 32bpp visually, however there is a great number of people out there who will disagree. My theory on this is that the games are to be played. If you take a screenshot in 16bpp and 32bpp and blow it up 500% there will be differences as with anything. Using that perspective, who actually stops in the middle of playing a game to blow up a wall texture 500%? Nobody that is serious about playing games. I've also seen other reviews on the net that showed the Voodoo3 screenshots from games like Quake II that were quite obvious that it wasn't even a Voodoo3. One review showed the Voodoo3 in 32bpp in 1600x1200. I'd love to know how that guy figured out how to do that, as it's impossible with the Voodoo3 to render at 32bpp. 32bpp rendering also takes a big performance hit, usually about 30-40%. In the case of the Rage 128, the performance hit was about 25% for 32bpp compared to 16bpp. I guess you can come to your own conclusion of if 32bpp rendering is important to you or not. Most games don't make a difference though, and the performance hit is enough to warrant staying far away for the current time. If you absolutely must have 32bpp rendering, don't buy the Voodoo3 as it's not something you'll enjoy. One thing to note is that although the Voodoo3 is AGP, it doesn't support large textures. 3D Mark 99 showed the Voodoo3 really being washed away in 1600x1200 by the Rage 128 simply because of its texture performance.