Rampage Texture Computer?

[megadrive0088]

any idea if this was carried over into GeForce FX?

 

[Testiculus Giganticus]

It wasn`t.

 

[gkar1]

If they had anything that could be hyped in the PR paper launch, they would have done so. The lack of hype/details speaks volumes of what the NV30 brings(or does not bring) to the table.

 

[DemoCoder]

And the range of your comments speak to the level of discussion you can bring to the table.

This question was raised at the press event and the response was the following:

(paraphrased)
Engineers are constantly inventing new things and throwing away their old things. 3dfx was bought for its talent. The 3dfx technology that is in the NV30 is what 3dfx engineers created over the last year or so, NOT old technology that was acquired.
(end paraphrase)

Asking this question would be like Intel buying out Cyrix and saying "What Cyrix technology have has been added to the Pentium4". It's not that that old technology was simply copied and worked into a new design, but that the talent of the acquired company, their insights, and ideas, have made it into the new product.

If the 3dfx engineers were to design Rampage today, knowing what they know now having gone through the first design, they would have done it differently. Just like when the R500 and NV50 roll around, engineers will have new ideas and look back and see where they went wrong on the previous generations.

3d cards aren't like genetic evolution, where old legacy "junk" is carried around from the first generation. With each new generation, engineers can build on the successes and mistakes of their past.

There is a blanket assumption that what 3dfx and Gigapixel designed could be translated directly into a high performance DX9 design today, but it's more probable that most of the design would have had to be reworked anyway, if feasible at all.

 

[gkar1]

A bit touchy aren't we? Please give it a break and face the facts. I was expecting more from NV30 than what it brings, which in my opinion isn't much new than what's already available.
I sure do love it that it is going to cause the competition(ATI) to lower its prices. And guess what?. I as a consumer will win. If anything, that's the only thing i can think the NV30 has going for it.

 

[stevem]

...3d cards aren't like genetic evolution, where old legacy "junk" is carried around from the first generation.

I'd have to disagree. Witness the evolution of the TNT->GF4 line. Even GFFX could be added to the dynasty...

 

[DemoCoder]

gkar, go look at your own posts in your profile, and see if they have a pattern.


As for legacy pipelines, some pieces of the basic design may be carried over, just as some facets of basic CPU design going back to the Intel 4004 have been carried over, but I don't believe you can say that GF4 pipeline is merely a superset of the TNT1 (or that TNT1 is a subset of GF4) I think the designs between generations is more substantial than just copy and pasting 1 pipeline into 2, then 4, and pasting more texture units. The actual pipelines themselves have been altered significantly.

 

[Tagrineth]

There is a blanket assumption that what 3dfx and Gigapixel designed could be translated directly into a high performance DX9 design today, but it's more probable that most of the design would have had to be reworked anyway, if feasible at all.

This post's credibility just hit zero with me. Thank you, have a nice day.

 

[stevem]

At the micro level, perhaps, but the pipelines are functionally not that different in the context of each improved product. Hence their UDA, albeit with diff code paths for diff levels of capability. Genetic models are excellent proxies for analysis of evolving systems, be they products, management, corporations or economies. Similar endogenous/exogenous constraints apply.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

The architectural evolution of graphics cards is actually quite a good parallel to genetic evolution. To state otherwise probably stems from a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution.

Besides, there are "junk" components lingering around from previous generations. Witness the S3TC texture bug that plagued nVidia... they could have "fixed" it at any point in their refresh cycles, but they did not.

BTW, does the NV30 finally "fix" this?

 

[Simon F]

Witness the S3TC texture bug that plagued nVidia... they could have "fixed" it at any point in their refresh cycles, but they did not.

I have a theory that Nvidia were storing decompressed texels in a texture cache. DXT1 probably decompressed to 16bpp rather than "32" (i.e. 24 + 0xFF alpha) for performance reasons since that would effectively 'double' the size of the cache. Since you have to store alpha with the other DXT modes, those would use a full 32bits which means the colour quality would be much higher.

 

[ERP]

Bingo Simon, it has to do with the cache I'm unsure that the actual restriction is based on cache size or some restriction on read in/write out behaviour (I seem to vaguely remember something about read in behaviour being the issue but its been a while).
16bit DX1 texels are strictly speaking to spec, interpolating in 32 bit space is obviously a superior solution but at the cost of some speed.

 

[OpenGL guy]

I have a theory that Nvidia were storing decompressed texels in a texture cache. DXT1 probably decompressed to 16bpp rather than "32" (i.e. 24 + 0xFF alpha) for performance reasons since that would effectively 'double' the size of the cache. Since you have to store alpha with the other DXT modes, those would use a full 32bits which means the colour quality would be much higher.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11793#11793

 

[3dcgi]

There is a blanket assumption that what 3dfx and Gigapixel designed could be translated directly into a high performance DX9 design today, but it's more probable that most of the design would have had to be reworked anyway, if feasible at all.

This post's credibility just hit zero with me. Thank you, have a nice day.

I don't see anything wrong with Democoder's post. I bet if you ask 3dfx's engineers they already had ideas to improve those designs. The typical engineer mindset is to continuously tweak a design until they are told to stop. Those ideas are what Nvidia wanted.

 

[Althornin]

And the range of your comments speak to the level of discussion you can bring to the table.

This question was raised at the press event and the response was the following:

(paraphrased)
Engineers are constantly inventing new things and throwing away their old things. 3dfx was bought for its talent. The 3dfx technology that is in the NV30 is what 3dfx engineers created over the last year or so, NOT old technology that was acquired.
(end paraphrase)

Asking this question would be like Intel buying out Cyrix and saying "What Cyrix technology have has been added to the Pentium4". It's not that that old technology was simply copied and worked into a new design, but that the talent of the acquired company, their insights, and ideas, have made it into the new product.

If the 3dfx engineers were to design Rampage today, knowing what they know now having gone through the first design, they would have done it differently. Just like when the R500 and NV50 roll around, engineers will have new ideas and look back and see where they went wrong on the previous generations.

3d cards aren't like genetic evolution, where old legacy "junk" is carried around from the first generation. With each new generation, engineers can build on the successes and mistakes of their past.

There is a blanket assumption that what 3dfx and Gigapixel designed could be translated directly into a high performance DX9 design today, but it's more probable that most of the design would have had to be reworked anyway, if feasible at all.

So basically, Democoder, what myself and others have been saying for over a year. There IS NO mysterious 3dfx tech that is "so good" that even years late, no one else can match it.
Stupid martyrdom...

 

[Althornin]

There is a blanket assumption that what 3dfx and Gigapixel designed could be translated directly into a high performance DX9 design today, but it's more probable that most of the design would have had to be reworked anyway, if feasible at all.

This post's credibility just hit zero with me. Thank you, have a nice day.

Pfft. why? your favorite company is getting dissed?

 

[KimB]

any idea if this was carried over into GeForce FX?

The Rampage Texture Computer?

That was just PS 1.0, if I heard correctly.

 

[Bigus Dickus]

The Rampage Texture Computer?

That was just PS 1.0, if I heard correctly.

 

[stevem]

What I find amusing is that all this time Nvidia was keen to discount 3dfx acquired tech, now they make a song & dance of it re:GFFX. It could almost be seen as a cynical attempt to elicit the 3fdx fan-base...

OTOH the GFFX board is bizarrely reminiscent of a cross b/n V55k & GF4Ti4600...

 

[KimB]

I don't think I ever heard nVidia discount it. I just don't think that it's been used in the way many people in these message boards seem to have assumed.

That is, I think DemoCoder is right on the money.