What was the worst and most unsuccessful video graphic chip(s) ever built!

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by Shtal, Sep 9, 2008.

?

What was the worst and most unsuccessful video graphic chip(s) ever built!

  1. 3DFX Voodoo5 6000

    4 vote(s)
    4.2%
  2. ATI Rage 3D (Mach64)

    2 vote(s)
    2.1%
  3. ATI Rage Fury Maxx (Dual 128Pro)

    6 vote(s)
    6.3%
  4. ATI Radeon X1800 XT (R520)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. ATI Radeon X2900 XT (R600)

    5 vote(s)
    5.2%
  6. Intel i7xx

    3 vote(s)
    3.1%
  7. Matrox Millennium (G450)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Matrox Parhelia 512

    10 vote(s)
    10.4%
  9. Nvidia (NV1) STG-2000 - Diamond Edge 3D

    9 vote(s)
    9.4%
  10. Nvidia (NV2)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. Nvidia Riva 128 (NV3)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. Nvidia Geforce FX5800 (NV30)

    41 vote(s)
    42.7%
  13. Rendition Verite V1 / V2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  14. S3 Savage 2000

    4 vote(s)
    4.2%
  15. SiS Xabre

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  16. ST Micro Kyro 1 / 2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  17. Trident XP4

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  18. ViRGE 325/DX/GX

    5 vote(s)
    5.2%
  19. XGI Volari

    3 vote(s)
    3.1%
  20. Not on the List!

    4 vote(s)
    4.2%
  1. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    SiS 6326. I bought one used only to serve as an AGP 2D card for the voodoo2 SLI, but even for non 3D tasks it was worthless! I could see 2D stuff drawing itself and it was too slow for full screen video even at 640x480 (so I had to use a tool that made video playback go through glide!)

    so the S3 Virge DX PCI went back in place. Virge series at least had good 2D and video playback performance, a perfect match with the Voodoo2s.
     
  2. Davros

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    14,891
    Likes Received:
    2,309
    It was just as good as its rival the athlon xp

    When I read about that I was looking forward to it , you had a division of lockheed martin, people who had been doing military sims for years (stuff well in advance of anything on the pc)
    together with intel a company with more resources and a bigger r&d budget than probably all the graphics card makers put together and they'd been making cpu's which were more complex than graphics chips at the time for decades how could they not make the best graphics card ever :(
     
    #22 Davros, Sep 9, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2008
  3. Blakhart

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heh I still have an s3 virge in my gameserver running 2k3, and an old 440bx dual piii setup with an i740.
     
  4. Skrying

    Skrying S K R Y I N G
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    61
    Depends totally on what time frame you're talking about. The Athlon XP was only on the market for two years~ before the release of the Athlon 64. The Athlon 64 dominated the Pentium 4 in performance and they were rivals for three years (the majority of the P4 life line). So your blanket ignores history entirely.

    I don't think non-mass production chips should even be considered. Also, driver support? For what? NV30 was abysmal in DirectX 9 no matter what the driver once and it arrived in a time where the transition to Dx9 was about to go into full force, it was a quick transition relatively.
     
  5. Blazkowicz

    Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Messages:
    5,607
    Likes Received:
    256
    I remember from reviews that non-ultra FX5800 was pretty decent in term of noise. the R300 forced nvidia to do a dreadful clock bump so that gave the Ultra, a bad heat and noise monster.
    I actually looked around trying to find a good deal on a used one. Cos' it had great texture filtering, strong drivers, there would have been the fun of running such a hated and dismissed card, and it was actually an ideal card for running doom 3. It feels like its specs were made for that game. But obviously it was a dead end. The NV35 didn't really fix it, I thought it was weird that people would dismiss a FX5800 but didn't have a problem getting a 5900.
     
  6. XMAN26

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1
    True, but the rest were and the 6k was part of that family.
     
  7. XMAN26

    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    1

    The 5900 line ran faster, didn't requirer 2 slot cooling and was better overall.
     
  8. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    Actually, when the 5800 was released there was only a single rather shitty game with some symbolic fluff DX9 support and that was Tomb Raider AOD. Half Life 2 was the only really interesting DX9 title on the horizon, and yeah it turned out that the 5800 struggled with that (though it could still run with full eye candy, and of course the game also had a DX8.1 fallback renderpath). But it's a bit silly to focus solely on DX9 performance when the card ran all other software at the time rather well.

    Notorious, sure. But worst and most unsuccesful ever? I maintain that we're going waaaay overboard here.
     
  9. I.S.T.

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    389
    NV30(Remember, that chip was only used in the 5800 and 5800 ultra. The other FX cards used derivative chips.) is the worst modern chip.

    I can STILL remember going onto nvnews' forum and seeing a guy trying to justify his 5800 Ultra purchase. He was a moderator. It was one of the funniest damn things I had seen up until then.
     
  10. Skrying

    Skrying S K R Y I N G
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    61
    Except the chip it was going against did everything and better and provided a gaming experience vastly longer than the FX ever did. Good DirectX 9 support is the reason why R300 is so famous now really, it's longevity was amazing. The FX's was horrible, from Nvidia's point of view not a single chip even begins to compare. Which brings me to another point, impact on the company and the market should be considered in this also. Has a failure in graphics ever been FX in size for one chip? Nope.
     
  11. Florin

    Florin Merrily dodgy
    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    219
    Location:
    The colonies
    Highly arguable. S3 once had the 2D graphics market in the palm of its hand, its complete failure to transition this lead into the 3D space with the disappointing Virge and the catastrophic Savage has all but killed the company completely.

    In Matrox' case, it might be argued that the G400 was their downfall; a serious contender once upon a time, it was so good that they only marginally improved on it for years and years - to this day, the company survives selling almost the same chip to a niche group of financial and other multi-screen 2D users. Or what about Parhelia - their dying breath in all other markets?

    And of course few failures in 3D history are as momumental as the story of 3DFX. Taking the Voodoo3 and deciding to become a board manufacturer was in hindsight obviously a tragic mistake. And VSA100 and its uncompetitive design, not least of all its lack of T&L ability in a changing graphics market, turned the king of the early 3D area into a piecemeal bargain buy for Nvidia.

    NV30 on the other hand never came anywhere near to killing a company. You keep talking about R300 but that's a chip that was amazing in its own right. It never needed the worst chip in history as its opponent to shine - the disappointing chip that was NV30 was quite enough.
     
  12. Dio

    Dio
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,758
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    UK
    Only Savage2000 was a disaster area. Savage3D and especially 4 were pretty good chips. It was just that the first Savage3D was awfully late, for reasons not entirely under S3's control, and then it lost momentum due to some things that wouldn't have been as much of a problem if it had gone earlier.

    Savage3D should have landed well before Voodoo2, and it would have cleaned up if it had (not least because it would have had manufacturers wanting to build the top-spec boards rather than the cheapo ones). I think S3's fundamental problems with managing technical projects would have still caused too many problems in the long run, though, and they'd still have bowed out about when they did.
     
  13. L233

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes Received:
    29
    Location:
    Germany
    The NV 30 was in no way worse than the 2900 XT. It failed to impress and it was unacceptably noisy. Same with the 2900 XT. The only difference is: the FX 5800 Ultra was a PR disaster because all the forums nerds went into feeding frenzy when it wasn't all that it was cracked up to be after months of hype.

    Especially in the context of it's time the NV30 is better than a lot of the other stuff on the list, including the Matrox Parhelia, which was supposed to be Matrox's return to competitiveness but was an utter failure, comercially and well as technologicaly. The NV30, at least, was faster than the ATI 9700 in DX8 games, which were the only relevant games back then.
     
    #33 L233, Sep 10, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 10, 2008
  14. jb

    jb
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    7
    I have to say the NV30. At that time NV was in the lead and starting to pull away. The NV30 caused them to loose market share and fall out of the spot light. Not only that when compared to ATI's R300 the NV30 started to loose a majority of the bench marks so out comes all of the stuff about cheating in 3dmark, optimizations in texture filtering in UT2004, ect. We got in some very dark times where lots of crap and aggressive PR was brought out by NV to try to counter to ATI's card. And I think that is important as there were more 3D users out then vrs back in the Day when you had some of the other failures, NV1, Virge, Matrox, ect so the spot light became bigger and draw more attention.
     
  15. no-X

    Veteran

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    247
    The question is "what was the worst graphic chip..", not "what was the worst family of graphic products".
     
  16. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Dangerously Mirthful
    Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    17,267
    Likes Received:
    1,783
    Location:
    Winfield, IN USA
    How do you judge "the worst" though? Is it just which does shittiest graphics? 'Cause if that's the case I'll just go for the oldest and play it safe, or is it which sold worse? There too older should help play it safe as the gaming crowd was smaller.

    I went with which was the most public and humiliating failure in terms of reception/life, and the nV30 might not have been that bad of a chip (disclaimer - I have a 5950ultra) the way nVidia handled the PR was what made that one the stinker of all times for me.

    It was the most widely known failure in the graphics world I believe so far, the 2900 could be argued to be close in terms of technical failings...but the 5900 just wins for how nVidia so badly handled the PR for it.
     
  17. swaaye

    swaaye Entirely Suboptimal
    Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    8,457
    Likes Received:
    580
    Location:
    WI, USA
    NV30 did do some things better than R300. OpenGL definitely and some older D3D8 games. It also did 16-bit color MSAA (R300 eventually did too tho) and had better support for games from the D3D 5-6 days. Of course, DX9 SM2 support is terrible.

    R3x0 was probably as good as could be done for a DX9 SM2 card with 150/130nm tech though. Superb AA and AF quality too, especially compared to the buggy half-wreck R200. Monster memory bandwidth to feed it all. And it was basically dead silent.
     
  18. I.S.T.

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,174
    Likes Received:
    389
    The 59xx series was the NV35. >.>
     
  19. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,528
    Likes Received:
    862
    The Voodoo 4&5 series (VSA-100 based cards). The VSA-100 killed 3Dfx.

    Cheers
     
  20. Unknown Soldier

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,238
    Likes Received:
    33
    Yep, was about to point out to Digi that the 5900 family was indeed the NV35 series family. The NV30 was 5800 family. The 5800 failed imo. because Nvidia was making such a hype(they were touting it's capabilities) about the card well even before the R300 got released so that when ATI actually released the R300 it actually kicked ass and Nvidia knew they were in trouble in regards to it's SM2.0 capabilities and delayed the NV30 for and extra 3 months or so to invent the dustbuster. In the end, not even the speed bump helped.

    I was thinking of the Matrox Parhelia 512 but didn't vote it for the simple fact that Matrox wasn't really in the graphics game. They wanted to arrive but never did. Same thing with S3.

    AMD's x2900 was a bad card compared to Nvidia's G80 but although it didn't perform as well and can be considered AMD's NV30, it's performance really wasn't as bad as the ill fated NV30 turned out to be when compared to the opposition.

    Just for interest:

    NV30
    # 3 geometrical processors (each exceed the specs of the DX9 VS 2.0)
    # 8 pixel processors (exceed the specs of the DX9 PS 2.0 markedly)

    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/gffx/gffx-ref-p1.html

    To say the least, NV30's SM1.x was slightly faster than the R300 but at that time and date, we were all looking at SM2.0 as the new kid on the block. Also, Nvidia's under handed tactics of getting developers to mostly code only SM1.4 was underhanded and hence the NV30 gets the bad rep.

    US
     
    #40 Unknown Soldier, Sep 11, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 11, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...