Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fall of Voodoo

tedium.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#101

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

lnanek2 wrote: post #52
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kinda feels weird that we use the term "GPU" to describe modern cards. Seems to me that there is much more demand for these components in the AI and cryptocoin mining markets than anything utilizing graphics. I wonder if we're about to witness the second death of PC gaming?

Gaming is bigger than the movie industry at this point. I don't think even a sub-category like PC gaming is going anywhere soon.

While unlikely to disappear completely, it can certainly decline to a much smaller niche. If you recall the state of PC gaming before Steam took off, it was in a decline.

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#102

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

coldtea wrote: post #49
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kinda feels weird that we use the term "GPU" to describe modern cards. Seems to me that there is much more demand for these components in the AI and cryptocoin mining markets than anything utilizing graphics. I wonder if we're about to witness the second death of PC gaming?

> Seems to me that there is much more demand for these components in the AI and cryptocoin mining markets than anything utilizing graphics. Only outside home use.

Hardly matters if the components are too expensive for home users to feel comfortable buying them.

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#103

Post by Gogogogirl »

oldcynic wrote: post #98
Gogogogirl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like AAA [1] has any 3D? From what I remember it was more like my Retina Z3 card but better. Had some discussions at conferences, it seemed Amiga hardware engineers didn't believe in 3D and were frozen in their graphics mindset of blitter and copper (huge when I wrote 68k demos in the mid-80s, but meaningless when 3D happened). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Advanced_Architecture_ch...

No it didn't, but it was started in 88 when keeping planar modes and adding 1280x1024 still made some sense keeping compatibility. Adding the DSP would have made a few new niches. In 93 it was all a bit too late - and they weren't even ready to ship then. 3D was in Hombre that was the PowerPC. Wildly different and no compatibility, so heaven knows how that would have played out. Only that was when we were all startin…

"keeping compatibility."

This killed the Amiga.

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#104

Post by Gogogogirl »

phire wrote: post #97
Gogogogirl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look like AAA [1] has any 3D? From what I remember it was more like my Retina Z3 card but better. Had some discussions at conferences, it seemed Amiga hardware engineers didn't believe in 3D and were frozen in their graphics mindset of blitter and copper (huge when I wrote 68k demos in the mid-80s, but meaningless when 3D happened). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Advanced_Architecture_ch...

It doesn't have 3D, but what it does have is 8 and 16bit chunky graphics modes, which make doing software renderers a lot easier than the planer modes of the old chipsets. With chunky graphics, you can write out an entire pixel with a single write, which is essential for rasterisation in software 3d games. It's not like PCs got 3d graphics cards until late-95, the AAA chipsets released in 1993 might have allowed the…

"which make doing software renderers a lot easier than the planer modes of the old chipsets."

Which is the reason that 3D gaming took really off with chipsets that support software rendering instead of GPUs.

The PS1 and the CD32 are around the same time and show how Commodore had no clue about 3D, but Sony delivered (Also Nintendo with the Super FX).

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#105

Post by throwawayjava »

nwah1 wrote: post #33
throwawayjava wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then they would've softened their blow and perhaps delayed their relative demise until the rise of smartphones. But I do think it's fair to say that the transition was going to be a bloodbath of layoffs and declining revenue in any case.

Someone has to make the cameras in the phones. That plausibly could've been Kodak, in an alternate reality.

There still would've been a bloodbath because chemical engineers aren't EEs/SEs. All the Kodak scientists/engineers/factory workers who were designing and making film would not have immediately pivoted to digital camera design and software development.

The "camera design" portion of kodak isn't where the primary bloodbath happened. The bloodbath happened when film died.

In other words, kodak the company may have thrived, but only by shedding huge portions of its workforce and retooling.

I guess if all you care about is stock value, then sure, Kodak could've pulled it off. But for the folks on the ground, the bloodbath would've happened either way.

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#106

Post by jonny_eh »

smacktoward wrote: post #60
djsumdog wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was the failed merger with STB. They should have kept with the nVidia route of making chips for other companies instead of trying to integrate the entire pipeline like ATI.

Yes, this. They tried to go from being a company that just licensed IP to OEMs (who would do the actual manufacturing and marketing of 3dfx-powered graphics cards) to being a company that did the manufacturing and marketing themselves, and in the end couldn't pull that off. Acquiring one of the more prominent OEMs, STB, was supposed to get them the expertise they needed to do that rather than having to develop it in-…

None of this was in the article, what a shame!

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#107

Post by LordHog »

mattnewport wrote: post #75
djsumdog wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the other companies are still there though. PowerVR still makes 3D chips, but only for the embedded market (e.g. Android phones). Matrox gave up on 3D and now only makes specialized cards for 8 and 16+ monitor displays (airports, kiosks). IIRC, even Trident switched to embedded graphics. The thing that bothers me is that if you want a PCI-E card on a consumer system, you only have nVidia/AMD. Intel only does…

I'm not sure what rumors you've heard but what's not a rumor is that Intel is releasing CPUs with integrated AMD GPUs: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12207/intel-with-radeon-rx-ve... That suggests Intel isn't going to be competitive in the graphics space in the near future

I believe you might be thinking Intel hiring Raja Koduri this past November. It seems Raja Koduri will be heading up new products in the graphics arena, but that is at least two or three years into the future. https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Kaby-Lake-G-L...

Re: Fall of Voodoo

#108

Post by justin66 »

specialist wrote: post #99
justin66 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nvidia was the feeble newcomer. Nvidia was never really feeble. Even when 3Dfx was shocking everyone with their raw throughput and had a bit of a moat (until DirectX stopped sucking) with the Glide API, Nvidia got their foot in the door with 32-bit rendering and decent OpenGL. 3Dfx made sense for a lot of us - anyone using Quake would get it if they could, since raw performance mattered a lot and you don't suffer t…

IIRC, which is a poor bet, I probably choose NVidia over 3dfx because of the OpenGL drivers. I was doing CAD, VRML, OpenGL stuff thru the 90s.

If your card was anything with "Geforce" in the name that was certainly the best choice. Even before the Geforce era, 3dfx never had anything except problematic OpenGL "mini drivers" which worked okay with Quake-based games but not much else.
Post reply on HN