marxveix wrote on 2025-04-23, 06:36:

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-22, 08:01:

i am not that interested in rage pro due to mediocre performance(about 2/3 of the riva128), and sometimes texture filtering doesn't work(blocky surfaces).

RagePro 8MB/XL 8MB AGP medicore performance it may have, 3DMark99Max (800x600x16) up to 2300 points is enough with faster CPUs for me.

Keep in mind that RagePro/XL has half the memory bandwidth vs Riva128.

Well that and Rage Pro released in March where Riva 128 launched at the end of August. That doesn't seem like much now, but back then that was basically half a generation. If Riva 128 didn't significantly outperform the older competition it would have been DoA. Especially so after NV1, no one really had any reason to trust NV at that point.

DrAnthony wrote on 2025-04-23, 15:57:

Well that and Rage Pro released in March where Riva 128 launched at the end of August. That doesn't seem like much now, but back then that was basically half a generation. If Riva 128 didn't significantly outperform the older competition it would have been DoA. Especially so after NV1, no one really had any reason to trust NV at that point.

maybe so, but i suggest that all 3d cards with a single pixel/texture unit to be the first generation, while voodoo2 is the first card of second generation.
therefore first generation 3d cards include: rendition1000/2200, permedia1/2, sis6326, rage pro, i740, trident9880, savage3, riva128 and g200.
cards without opengl icd are considered failed 3d cards.

From the lowest Direct3D cards is missing ATi 3D Rage (Mach64GT aka Rage1)
https://youtu.be/wXKMxNg-_0Y

noshutdown wrote on 2025-04-24, 01:20:

maybe so, but i suggest that all 3d cards with a single pixel/texture unit to be the first generation, while voodoo2 is the first card of second generation.
therefore first generation 3d cards include: rendition1000/2200, permedia1/2, sis6326, rage pro, i740, trident9880, savage3, riva128 and g200.
cards without opengl icd are considered failed 3d cards.

That would make SiS 300 and 305 also first generation, which is quite wild.

Putas wrote on 2025-05-02, 07:23:

That would make SiS 300 and 305 also first generation, which is quite wild.

oh really, i don't have much info on the sis300 and 305 and am not sure if they have a single pixel and texture unit, but if they do, they should count as first generation.
anyway they are released in 1999 and performance of sis300 is estimated to be about 20-30% faster than the g200, so it sounds nothing unreasonable, just long overdue like the trident9880.

also this is my ranking of first generation 3d cards, based on overall rating of d3d and opengl:
1.sis300(99)
2.trident9880turbo(99, high clock version)
3.matrox g200(98, i used to place this on top, not knowing the existence of sis300 and trident9880turbo)
4.riva128/128zx(97, this can be controversial and some may feel it overrated, but its opengl performance is too overwhelming and elevates overall ranking)
5.s3 savage3(98) and trident9880 standard version(99, about on par)
7.intel i740(98)
8.ati rage pro(97)
9.rendition2200(97) and 3dlabs permedia2(97, performance is about on par, permedia2 has inferior lighting quality)
11.sis6326(97)
12.3dlabs permedia1(96)
13.rendition1000(96)
those without opengl driver support are disqualified, most of which are not expected to go higher than the rendition2200 though.
3dfx is not listed either as it uses its own glide api, so it simply doesn't compete in this lane. but if you let me say, i think its about on par with the rage pro.

noshutdown wrote on 2025-05-27, 02:02:

oh really, i don't have much info on the sis300 and 305 and am not sure if they have a single pixel and texture unit, but if they do, they should count as first generation.

Here is some information about the SIS300:
https://512bit.net/sis/sis_300.html
http://www.yjfy.com/C/C.P/video/CS300.htm

I own one of the Revenger 300 shown on the second link. But mine has full 64MB compared to the pictured 32MB Version. If you want some Benchmarks/Spec Screenshots just tell me.

Putas wrote on 2025-05-02, 07:23:

That would make SiS 300 and 305 also first generation, which is quite wild.

Since the forum doesn't let me reply to your PM (maybe because I am a new user) i respond here. Here are the pictures of the Powercolor Revenger 300 (SIS 300,64MB) you wanted.

Thank you, TM30 (I asked for them). Sorry for OT.

I'm pretty late in commenting on this, but seeing the discussion of what is considered "first generation" being based around a single specification... I don't think that's how generations work.

If I make a thing in 1999 that's better than stuff from 1996 in every way but is kinda outdated too so it resembles them in some ways, that doesn't make it the best thing from the 1996 generation. It just makes it a decent budget 1999 product.

If you want to call it a "class" or something, that's fine... like cards that are of the single pipeline class. But generally speaking, "time" is the thing that is shared by things of the same generation and in the world of computers and electronics this is even more so the case because things change so rapidly.

EDIT: Obviously there are exceptions to this... if I make a thing in 1999 that is nearly identical to a thing that has been made since 1996 except for some slight differences, one might consider it the same generation because it is effectively the same thing. Like how cars can be made for several years with minimal changes, or when an existing design\platform is used under a different brand for longer than the original, it would still be basically the same generation as the original.

But making a great car in 2025 with an engine design from the 1880s doesn't make it the best first generation automobile.

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-06-02, 23:33:

But making a great car in 2025 with an engine design from the 1880s doesn't make it the best first generation automobile.

the car analogy seems inadequate for defining first generation 3D graphics hardware. consider this: if an engine design persisted for decades, from the 1880s to 1940s, could we objectively declare cars before year X as first generation?
this parallels the challenge in 3d cards classification, as they evolved continuously rather than in discrete leaps, making it difficult to draw a line based on time. just have a look at the timeline(excluding disqualified cards):
1996: rendition1000, permedia1
1997: sis6326, rage pro, rendition2200, permedia2, riva128
1998: i740, g200, savage3
1999: trident9880, sis300
as you can see, each card is only a few months later than the previous one, so what makes one doesn't count while the other one does?
therefore i choose another more solid line of spec, as having single pixel and texture unit is the common feature of all first generation 3d cards, making them fundamentally different from the more advanced tnt and rage128.

You're definitely welcome, and even encouraged to have your own opinion on topics like this where there really isn't a ground truth to reference to reference against. What you have to keep in mind is that you're absolutely going to be outnumbered on this and in a very, very slim majority if place something like the V1000 in the same "generation" as the i740, G200, and Savage3, let alone anything from 1999. You're also right that it's hard to draw a line in time during this point because of a combination of rapid advancements AND significant product delays. Take for instance the Rage128 you used as a more advanced product. It came to market over 6 months later than planned due to a backbreaking bug that found more or less when they were shoving these things into boxes. In reality it released with and competed against a fully different generation of cards and only ended up as being a decent choice rather than a full on home run it would have been had it competed for those first 6 months against the prior generation. Also, I agree with the post above that these are functional classes. Lastly, it may be far more useful to break things down by "Manufacturers generations" so like 3DFX's first generation products were the Voodoo and the Rush, with the Banshee and Voodoo II representing the second. There's MUCH less blur that way and you can apply your "first useful" classification to mark products like ViRGE and Rage1/2 cards as novelties more than viable options.

I'd think blending functions would matter more than texture units for a generation, especially as not every 3d game after multitexturing cared about such extensions available...