131–140 of 217 posts
Matrox needs a mention somewhere. GPUs do raster too, and theirs optimized for an entirely different market.
It's probably just me being out of touch, but I don't think the GeForce RTX 4000 or 5000 series really mattered/matters that much. At the same time I'd add the S3 ViRGE and the Matrox G200. Both mattered a lot at the time, but not long term.
decelerator?
>Matrox G200
because it never got opengl driver? Because it was 2x slower than even Savage3D? Nvidia TNT released a month later offering 2x the speed at lower price
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-chips,83-7.html
truly a graphic card that mattered! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article blew a huge opportunity to showcase the great diversity of “Pioneering Era” 3D accelerators (they weren’t called GPUs until later). But instead they just pretended it was always NVIDIA vs ATI, and threw in a few Voodoos.
It was only 3dfx and NVIDIA (since the TNT) that mattered in the 1990s though. All the other 3D accelerators were only barely better than software rasterization, if at all. Seeing Quake II run butter smooth on a Riva TNT at 1024x768 for the first time was like witnessing the second coming of Christ ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or the S3 Savage3D, which, while being inferior to the TNT2, pioneered texture compression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_Texture_Compression
The article blew a huge opportunity to showcase the great diversity of “Pioneering Era” 3D accelerators (they weren’t called GPUs until later). But instead they just pretended it was always NVIDIA vs ATI, and threw in a few Voodoos.
It's probably just me being out of touch, but I don't think the GeForce RTX 4000 or 5000 series really mattered/matters that much. At the same time I'd add the S3 ViRGE and the Matrox G200. Both mattered a lot at the time, but not long term.
The G200 mattered to some degree for a long time, because most x86 servers up until a few years ago would ship a G200 implementation or at least something pretending to be a G200 card as part of their BMC for network KVM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I just explained why they probably aren't there. Every GPU that gamers cared about isn't as catchy, I suppose.
The reason datacenter cards even exist are gaming GPUs. gaming basically funded GPU development up to the point of AI explosion. So no, the most important AI card isn't AI card, it's gaming GPUs that funded that mess
A lot of GPUs in this list are basically just previous GPU but faster or more RAM. I kind of thought it was going to focus on interesting new architecture innovations.
Absolute nostalgia fever. About a month ago, I dug up an old desktop in the corner, took the drives out and gave away the machine. It felt like putting a racehorse to pasture: i7-4790k, 1080 Ti. It was my dream machine when I got it. Dual-boot (as we did back in the old days when Proton wasn't here) to Ubuntu, then Elementary, then Arch. By the time I gave it away it wasn't worth the power cost. And that brought to m…
Still there are a lot of laptops I'd like to try when they get cheaper. As far as GPUs I like the Nvidia founder designs, it was a while before I got a 3080 Ti Fe that I ended up having to sell at a loss when I didn't have a job that was sad. I have a 4070 founders now which does struggle on certain games at 1440p but I'm going to use it to run local LLMs.
It's probably just me being out of touch, but I don't think the GeForce RTX 4000 or 5000 series really mattered/matters that much. At the same time I'd add the S3 ViRGE and the Matrox G200. Both mattered a lot at the time, but not long term.
> S3 ViRGE and the Matrox G200 Both were only really famous for how terrible they were though. I think the S3 Virge might even qualify as 3D decelerator ;)