yet another Titian - Titan V CEO Edition

[bru]

It's the most laughable claim.

Ok so what is your definition of a GPU?

 

[jigger]

more Rroffle

LOL come on Rroff, everyone here knows what your all about.

 

[Rroff]

LOL come on Rroff, everyone here knows what your all about.

I mean you are the one that isn't even quoting what I'm saying, which has actual information and links and instead substituting it with nonsense...

 

[jigger]

Ok so what is your definition of a GPU?

A processor that makes up part of a hardware subset that is designed to deal with image processing.

 

[bru]

Image processing, that is the issue, NVidia say that their Geforce 256 was the first to do that by offloading all the processing including transform and lighting off of the CPU, everything else before it needed the CPU to do some of the heavy lifting so to speak.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Of all the nVidia lies that is one of the least problematic - Jensen Huang initially under AMD (where he was a microprocessor designer) and later at nVidia was instrumental in creating what is ultimately a proper GPU - while earlier graphics processors might have been called GPUs in name they all had only a subset of the functionality of a true graphics processor in hardware and relied on software doing a lot of the actual processing. I mean its a bit of an inflated claim but not without some merit.

Though if you want to be really picky about it then GPUs weren't complete GPUs until the unified shader model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_shader_model

In reailty a Geforce 256 only has a small subset of the functionality of a current gpu. Determining that the Geforce 256 is the start of gpus because of an arbitrary line in what can be done on a GPU is crazy because as said, if a Pascal is called a GPU then by the same reasoning a Geforce 256 can't be considered a GPU either.

Every generation of chips, be they cpu, gpu or anything else, mostly have only a subset of the functionality the next generation brings. That the 256 could do a bit more than previous gpus doesn't mean anything at all, it just means it had more capability, not that it's primary function (processing graphics) was different. You're talking about how it achieved that, not what it's function was. GPUs existed long long long before a Geforce 256.

 

[Rroff]

Determining that the Geforce 256 is the start of gpus because of an arbitrary line in what can be done on a GPU is crazy

It isn't an arbitrarily line though there are some quibbles to that as per my mention of the unified shader pipeline. The GeForce 256 marked the first point that you could do the full spread of primitive graphics operations in hardware such as polygon clipping, etc. - prior to that many primitive graphics operations that underpin more advanced features were done in software usually via either keeping a copy of the data in system memory that would be manipulated then uploaded to the graphics card or downloaded from the graphics card, manipulated and then uploaded again for rendering.

Sure graphic cards can do many more advanced features now in hardware and there are some debatable points but most of those more advanced features found on increasingly more modern GPUs work on top of the primitive functions by making complex use of them.

There is some degree of inflating the claim by nVidia and some arbitrary claims like minimum tris rates, etc. that are kind of irrelevant in defining what makes a GPU but still it isn't the outright lie Jigger is making out - in terms of bad things nVidia have done or claimed it is one of the lesser ones - the CEO really did do a lot of work underpinning it while at AMD, etc. even if it is a bit of an inflated claim.

 

[bru]

Yup considering some of the whoppers that Nvidia have told that one is at least somewhat accurate as they say, it was the first GPU to be able to do it all onboard.

 

[Ian Evey]

Voodoo 1 was the first gpu for gaming that actually made games look amazing.

I bought the GeForce 256 and thought it was crap so swapped it for 2 voodoo 2’s.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

LOL come on Rroff, everyone here knows what your all about.

Please don’t bait posters. The past few of your replies have been awful and have simply not added to the debate.

Anyone can rubbish a claim without backing it up. Responding with “some spam” adds nothing to the conversation and only antagonises posters attempting to engage in the thread.

By awful, I mean nonsensical and unintelligible crap.

 

[Panos]

This is the actual claim http://www.nvidia.co.uk/page/geforce256.html it isn't an outright lie - though it isn't wrong to call pre-GeForce cards GPUs they technically don't (ignoring some aspects like tris rates nVidia seems to have made up as the definition of a GPU) have the full functionality of a GPU but do provide some subset of that functionality.

Before the GeForce and later cards if you wanted to do much in the way of manipulation of the data you had to download it from the GPU (or keep copies in physical memory, etc.) process it then upload it to the GPU again - with the GeForce onwards it was possible to do much of this in hardware on the GPU.

Sorry mate but what you referring was to something like the Voodoo 2 and other accelerators.
By the time Nvidia released their first GPU the Riva TNT, ATI already had released the full blown ATI Rage 3 years earlier.

 

[Panos]

Can this one add up correctly then ?

Hahaha, nope because is exactly the same tech.

And the worse part is, everyone who splashed £3500 for the Titan V, possibly have lost sleep knowing that there are 20 people out there with a faster GPU than theirs.....

 

[Rroff]

Sorry mate but what you referring was to something like the Voodoo 2 and other accelerators.
By the time Nvidia released their first GPU the Riva TNT, ATI already had released the full blown ATI Rage 3 years earlier.

Voodoo 2 was a 3D accelerator and required another 2D card (sometimes an extra 2D processor cobbled on the board) - although they had a fairly impressive feature set they still lacked a full hardware pipeline hence the miniport drivers, etc. (also true of the V3 which couldn't do hardware transformation and lighting as well some other functions).

Not sure what you are referring to with the Rage as their first graphics card with hardware transformation and lighting was the Radeon family. Though some of the later Rage series were a bit better most of the series had rather lacking 3D capabilities.

GeForce 256’s status as the first to incorporate programmable pixel shaders with the use of T&L has long been the subject of debate. That’s because a number of designs also incorporated T&L either at the prototype stage (Rendition VéritéV4400, BitBoys Pyramid3D, 3dfx Rampage), at a level approaching irrelevancy (3DLabs GLINT, Matrox G400’s WARP), or through a separate on-board chip (Hercules Thriller Conspiracy).

None of these achieved commercial functionality, however. Moreover, by being first to adopt a four pipeline architecture, Nvidia had an inbuilt performance lead over the competition. This combined with the T&L engine enabled the company to market the GeForce 256 as a professional workstation card.

 

[jigger]

Please don’t bait posters. The past few of your replies have been awful and have simply not added to the debate.

Anyone can rubbish a claim without backing it up. Responding with “some spam” adds nothing to the conversation and only antagonises posters attempting to engage in the thread.

By awful, I mean nonsensical and unintelligible crap.

You really should take a step back and apply the your own standards to yourself.

A poster asked a question. I answered. Rroff knows full well the lies Jen-Sun has spun over the years. He just wants to start another argument.

 

[jigger]

Yup considering some of the whoppers that Nvidia have told that one is at least somewhat accurate as they say, it was the first GPU to be able to do it all onboard.

That fact remains Nvidia didn't invent the GPU.

 

[hyperseven]

That fact remains Nvidia didn't invent the GPU.

Google says otherwise so you are wrong, nothing unusual there

Got those links to Nvidia's CEO specifically lying yet?

 

[bru]

That fact remains Nvidia didn't invent the GPU.

Well that fact is one we will have to disagree on.
As far as consumer GPU's go according to NVidia and most of the internet everything before it required to CPU to do some of the heavy lifting.

As someone said in one of the many threads that we all enjoy on here. You don't want it to be true, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so. And yes I know that works both ways, but the internet seems to agree with NVidia and so do I.

 

[jigger]

Google says otherwise so you are wrong, nothing unusual there

Got those links to Nvidia's CEO specifically lying yet?

No I'm right on both counts. Nvidia never invented the GPU. They may have coined a phrase first. And Jen-Sun has told a lot of lies

Report
Report
Report

 

[Gregster]

That fact remains Nvidia didn't invent the GPU.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=who+invented+the+GPU

 

[hyperseven]

No I'm right on both counts. Nvidia never invented the GPU. They may have coined a phrase first. And Jen-Sun has told a lot of lies

Report
Report
Report

A report, well if you insist that would be super.