They are talking there about chipset Primus P2000 and upcoming P3000. Anyone seen this card. Is it their own chipset or something remarked? Never heard of them before.

back then they are considered hardly graphics cards, just video cards are best, 2d acceleration if anything.

pan069 wrote:

Don't necessarily want to create posts without questions and simply link to something external, but, I thought this was an interesting read (not to mention nostalgic, the ads, ooh, the ads):

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LIyy_CtozLcC&pg=PA165

Here you have more:
Re: Maximum PC mag back issues on google

Warlord wrote:

back then they are considered hardly graphics cards, just video cards are best, 2d acceleration if anything.

Dumb framebuffer is still graphics.
If we were talking about early 80s cards, like MDA, then indeed, can't really call them "graphics"...

It only recently occurred to me that "Color / Graphics Adapter" really meant color and/or graphics, because that's a meaningful distinction -- not just IBM's propensity to wear-level the less frequently used keys on a keyboard by adding slashes to every name.

Warlord wrote:

back then they are considered hardly graphics cards, just video cards are best, 2d acceleration if anything.

Usually the disctinction is made between text mode and graphics mode. So a card with a 6845 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6845) is considered video card but not graphcis card as it can do text mode only.
In that sense most of the 1992 cards fullfill the requirement to be able to show pixel based graphics.

A distinction between the capabilities was done by "framebuffer device", "fixed function accelerator", "programable graphics processor".
Examples would be ET4000, IBM 8514/A, TMS32040.

Fixed function usually relates to functions as line draw, polygon draw, bit block transfer and polyfill.
The programmable graphics processor like the TMS32040 allow to freely program that functions but also anything else, such as transparent 2D sprites or even 3D stuff.
The #9 TIGA dance demo shows this.
(also 1992)

Would be interesting to see what such a card with the FPU added could push to the screen when programmed natively.

elianda wrote:

Usually the disctinction is made between text mode and graphics mode. So a card with a 6845 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_6845) is considered video card but not graphcis card as it can do text mode only.

That is not entirely true.
While the 6845 was originally designed for text displays, it can indeed be used for graphics as well. The CGA and Hercules use a 6845 for example, as does the Amstrad CPC.

Ok. This was not an entirely perfect example...