Originally posted by duby229
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
NVIDIA, Intel Post New Windows 10 Graphics Drivers For WSL2 Linux App Support
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
I remember when one of the PC magazines (PC Gamer maybe - it's been years) talked about the Voodoo Banshee - it was the cover story, claiming it was going to be 32-bit this and that, and had AGP, and SBA support and the like. Turned out when the product launched, EVERYTHING that they highlighted on the cover was a lie. NVIDIA had single-chip solutions before 3Dfx. The Riva 128 had anisotropic filtering long before 3Dfx ever did, as well as 32-bit colour (24bpp+transparency). The GF256 had much better throughput overall than the Voodoo cards of the time, with faster RAM and better precision. Also far better power efficiency. And at the risk of countering your unverified statement, the GF256 was up to 50% faster than the Voodoo 3 3500 according to Wikipedia's references. NVIDIA has a history of meeting standard OpenGL support starting with the Riva cards whereas 3Dfx had their custom miniGL-to-GLide implementation that needed special game support.
OpenGL performance from Nvidia has always been stellar, no doubt about that. But at the time, many more games used Glide.Last edited by omer666; 17 June 2020, 06:12 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View Post
I remember when one of the PC magazines (PC Gamer maybe - it's been years) talked about the Voodoo Banshee - it was the cover story, claiming it was going to be 32-bit this and that, and had AGP, and SBA support and the like. Turned out when the product launched, EVERYTHING that they highlighted on the cover was a lie. NVIDIA had single-chip solutions before 3Dfx. The Riva 128 had anisotropic filtering long before 3Dfx ever did, as well as 32-bit colour (24bpp+transparency). The GF256 had much better throughput overall than the Voodoo cards of the time, with faster RAM and better precision. Also far better power efficiency. And at the risk of countering your unverified statement, the GF256 was up to 50% faster than the Voodoo 3 3500 according to Wikipedia's references. NVIDIA has a history of meeting standard OpenGL support starting with the Riva cards whereas 3Dfx had their custom miniGL-to-GLide implementation that needed special game support.
Just FYI: the Voodoo 2 was the only card that was faster than NVIDIA chips of the time, but the Riva 128 surpassed it shortly after, and every subsequent NVIDIA card had ever since. Wikipedia has a whole list of references that details that.
- Likes 3
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by omer666 View Post
I really am not convinced at all. Back in the Riva days, 3dfx was the clear winner.
It's when the Geforce 256 and the Radeon got released supporting T&L (and 3dfx failed to retaliate) that things changed.
But according to Tim Sweeney himself, 3dfx still had a higher texture rate than Geforce 256 at least, but that's another story.
Anyway, with Geforce 2 and 3, Nvidia caught up with ATI, but did not quite match the Radeon 8500.
Then, Geforce 4 got crushed by Radeon 9000 series. That's when they decided to buy 3dfx and release the "FX" series. But poor FX 5800 still got crushed by ATI's Radeon 9800, which was a freaking monster. At that time, Radeon GPUs already had optimised tesselation and FSAA.
- Likes 2
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by omer666 View Post
I really am not convinced at all. Back in the Riva days, 3dfx was the clear winner.
It's when the Geforce 256 and the Radeon got released supporting T&L (and 3dfx failed to retaliate) that things changed.
But according to Tim Sweeney himself, 3dfx still had a higher texture rate than Geforce 256 at least, but that's another story.
Anyway, with Geforce 2 and 3, Nvidia caught up with ATI, but did not quite match the Radeon 8500.
Then, Geforce 4 got crushed by Radeon 9000 series. That's when they decided to buy 3dfx and release the "FX" series. But poor FX 5800 still got crushed by ATI's Radeon 9800, which was a freaking monster. At that time, Radeon GPUs already had optimised tesselation and FSAA.
Just FYI: the Voodoo 2 was the only card that was faster than NVIDIA chips of the time, but the Riva 128 surpassed it shortly after, and every subsequent NVIDIA card had ever since. Wikipedia has a whole list of references that details that.Last edited by Giovanni Fabbro; 17 June 2020, 06:00 PM.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by omer666 View PostThey were so lame Nvidia bought them for 55 million dollars in order to use their patents and learn how to make a decent GPU.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Giovanni Fabbro View PostAnd Riva chips were better than what 3dfx was cranking out at the time too.
It's when the Geforce 256 and the Radeon got released supporting T&L (and 3dfx failed to retaliate) that things changed.
But according to Tim Sweeney himself, 3dfx still had a higher texture rate than Geforce 256 at least, but that's another story.
Anyway, with Geforce 2 and 3, Nvidia caught up with ATI, but did not quite match the Radeon 8500.
Then, Geforce 4 got crushed by Radeon 9000 series. That's when they decided to buy 3dfx and release the "FX" series. But poor FX 5800 still got crushed by ATI's Radeon 9800, which was a freaking monster. At that time, Radeon GPUs already had optimised tesselation and FSAA.
- Likes 4
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by omer666 View Post
They were so lame Nvidia bought them for 55 million dollars in order to use their patents and learn how to make a decent GPU.
And Riva chips were better than what 3dfx was cranking out at the time too.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: