Most spectacular failure in video card history

[BW86]

probably the 5800

 

[route66]

What was the first 3dfx card with 2d and 3d. Banshee? Rush?

Anyways, that was really bad too.

PS - I voted S3, because the other solutions at least worked.

 

[jiffylube1024]

This is more asinine childish flamebait, and frankly Rollo you should know better (but I know you just can't help yourself). Crossfire isn't even out yet!

Not that anyone cares, buuut.... I voted for the V5, simply because it was the card that killed the company. Too little, too late as they say. Apparently gamers wanted more than just permission to use 32-bit colour on the followup to Voodoo3 (itself basically two voodoo 2's in SLI matched with a RAMDAC for 2d, and the Voodoo 2 basically a sped-up V1).

It seems gamers were sick of being told what they wanted. I'm not going to mention Cg or anything because this thread is flamebait itself enough .

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Rollo
I loved my 5800U. It was a big failure though, mostly due to the noise. I think people would have got over the second place performance if not for the fan noise.

Why would you settle for the second-place card in a two-horse race unless you have some inherent bias? :disgust: (Speaking of horses, I'm beating a dead one here; sorry).

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Greenman
You forgot the nv80 in the list of choices. Without doubt the worst desaster in video history. nVidia should just cancel the thing now and save all that R&D money.

LOL

 

[lifeguard1999]

My vote is for the Voodoo5 6000 which only saw the light of day on Ebay.

 

[VIAN]

I think it's funny that you included ATI's Crossfire, while I admit it was a failure, it wasn't the biggest. I remember the behemoth Nvidia made the 5800 out to be. But closely behind has to be the Crossfire. I'm not familiar with Savage and I'm not personally aquainted with the release of Voodoo5 with all it's hype.

I'm surprised you didn't mention any XGI with the first 16pipe card.

I wish I was around when Voodoo was still on top, you know what, I probably wouldn't have bought a 5500 either, being that the Geforce2 was faster and cheaper, but it still feels like something is missing. Even Before Geforce, there was Voodoo in my world. I entered the PC thing as Voodoo was on it's way out. The first card I wanted to buy other than what came with my PC was a Voodoo5 for about 200 or 250 bucks. Wanted one so bad.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: VIAN
I think it's funny that you included ATI's Crossfire, while I admit it was a failure, it wasn't the biggest. I remember the behemoth Nvidia made the 5800 out to be.

I'm surprised you didn't mention any XGI with the first 16pipe card.

I wish I was around when Voodoo was still on top, you know what, I probably wouldn't have bought a 5500 either, being that the Geforce2 was faster and cheaper, but it still feels like something is missing. Even Before Geforce, there was Voodoo in my world. I entered the PC thing as Voodoo was on it's way out. The first card I wanted to buy other than what came with my PC was a Voodoo5 for about 200 or 250 bucks. Wanted one so bad.

i forgot all about that XGI garbage, atleast the 5800 and crossmarket are or will be shortly available...

 

[ElFenix]

meh, the V5 wasn't that big a failure. it was at least competitive at some things, and the AA really moved the industry forward (although nvidia managed to do the same thing in drivers by the time the V5 was released). they had an extra featureset, it just wasn't what the market (being large OEMs trying to sell checkbox features to the average idiot at best buy) wanted.

the disappointment was that 3dfx was a terribly run company

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
meh, the V5 wasn't that big a failure.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back and killed a company. How much bigger of a failure is there? It needed 2 cores to be somewhat competitive, and because of this couldn't yield them much profit. The main problem with V4/V5, however, wasn't that it was so bad, just that it was delayed too many times. 3dfx's Rampage was planned to be released around the following year of V5's actual launch, but V5 was so late to the table they had to pull the plug.

it was at least competitive at some things, and the AA really moved the industry forward

Agreed - 3dfx's AA was a benchmark for years afterwards.

the disappointment was that 3dfx was a terribly run company

Agreed completely. Have you read any of the articles about their work environment? I heard something like they had marble flooring in their office, managers could do whatever they wanted (with as much company cash as they liked), no clear direction internally, fatally ingrained hubris regarding competitors etc, etc.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Rollo
I loved my 5800U. It was a big failure though, mostly due to the noise. I think people would have got over the second place performance if not for the fan noise.

Why would you settle for the second-place card in a two-horse race unless you have some inherent bias? :disgust: (Speaking of horses, I'm beating a dead one here; sorry).

Well, I think the fact that some people did buy the FX 5900 is proof that his statement is true. I actually replaced a 9700 Pro with an FX 5900, which was the last ATI card I have ever owned (I've built rigs for others with ATI cards since though). You can call it inherent bias or whatever you want to call it, but I had my reasons. Primarily, I got tired of ATI making me look like an ass for spending top dollar on a card that barely worked with Linux, I just didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth. Look at it this way: even if you get 50% more performance, but it works on 100% less OS'es, you are't coming out ahead. Basically, if you only look at the two horse race as you call it from only one perspective it may seem like a no-brainer, but when you look at the entire package there are different angles to consider than just DX9 shader performance under Windows.

 

[dug777]

where's the XGI Volari V8 duo?

incidentally, if you have one i'll buy it off you right now

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: Rollo
I loved my 5800U. It was a big failure though, mostly due to the noise. I think people would have got over the second place performance if not for the fan noise.

Why would you settle for the second-place card in a two-horse race unless you have some inherent bias? :disgust: (Speaking of horses, I'm beating a dead one here; sorry).

Well, I think the fact that some people did buy the FX 5900 is proof that his statement is true. I actually replaced a 9700 Pro with an FX 5900, which was the last ATI card I have ever owned (I've built rigs for others with ATI cards since though). You can call it inherent bias or whatever you want to call it, but I had my reasons. Primarily, I got tired of ATI making me look like an ass for spending top dollar on a card that barely worked with Linux, I just didn't feel like I was getting my money's worth. Look at it this way: even if you get 50% more performance, but it works on 100% less OS'es, you are't coming out ahead. Basically, if you only look at the two horse race as you call it from only one perspective it may seem like a no-brainer, but when you look at the entire package there are different angles to consider than just DX9 shader performance under Windows.

I understand your justification, and there always is choice, but we were talking about the FX 5800U, not the FX5900. The FX5900 was a better design with a 256-bit memory bus, among other improvements. Another point is that the FX5900 was a series (5900 XT/5900 regular/5900 Ultra) that hit several price points and had its place in the market. Our argument was the two flagship cards of an era, specifically the 5800 Ultra and the 9800 Pro. In that case, the 5900 Ultra was not only slower in everything but also late to the party (which, if the hype and speculation around here is true, is about to happen all over again in reverse, with the R520 finally coming late to the party...)

Your example is a unique one as well - you mention use with Linux - that wasn't what we were discussing. In that case, Nvidia at that time was basically the only choice, since ATI's Linux drivers were so bad (I'm completely unfamiliar with Linux drivers, so I have no idea if they've improved since then or not... sorry).

 

[Avalon]

The XGI Volari V8 Duo was a pretty large disaster of a card. All XGI's single cards, while by no means great performers, were all great and working cards for the money.

Anyway, I voted for the S3. My love for 3dfx is too great to allow me to vote on the V5

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024

Originally posted by: ElFenix
meh, the V5 wasn't that big a failure.

It was the straw that broke the camel's back and killed a company. How much bigger of a failure is there? It needed 2 cores to be somewhat competitive, and because of this couldn't yield them much profit. The main problem with V4/V5, however, wasn't that it was so bad, just that it was delayed too many times. 3dfx's Rampage was planned to be released around the following year of V5's actual launch, but V5 was so late to the table they had to pull the plug.

well, it had two cores but it was about the same number of transistors. the (official) reason for that, of course, is that 3dfx guessed that the transition to a new process shrink wouldn't be nearly as smooth as it turned out to be.

 

[imported_Rampage]

Without doubt, Crossfire. Many old video cards can display above 16x12@60hz.
For me, even the 1600x1200 is useless if it cant go above 60hz. Too low, flicker fest.

All those other solutions are long in the past. Crossfire is not only historys greatest trajedy, its history in the making.


I think an option needs added to the list though that would top them all
ATI Video Drivers. Why? Because they are the greatest tragedy, its a continuing let-down.
The rest, including Crossfire, are one shot failures (hopefully).
While NV supports all the way back to the TNT in their drivers, the same can't be said for ATI. Now, ATI is dropping support for all their products older than the R300 in Vista.

 

[nemesismk2]

My vote is for the 5800 Ultra, good for drying your hair but rubbish for playing games.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: route66
What was the first 3dfx card with 2d and 3d. Banshee? Rush?

Anyways, that was really bad too.

PS - I voted S3, because the other solutions at least worked.

I owned a 3dfx Banshee and it was a good video card, it was the 3dfx Rush which was really bad.

 

[fliguy84]

my vote's for Voodoo 5. why? the voodoo 5 series practically killed 3Dfx, those multicores although sound good on paper don't do much in real life. savage 3D 2000 comes close to a vote, but that card didn't kill S3 =).

wow i remember those days when matrox, nvidia, ati, 3Dfx and S3 were almost at the same ground in pc graphics =(

hey where's Bitchin' Fast! 3D 2000??

 

[sisq0kidd]

5800 because it was spectacular and defeated.

Nothing spectacular about crossfire

 

[jazzboy]

Well I voted 5800U - they really did did seem a bit pants at the time.

But what about an option for the Rage Fury Maxx

 

[ronnn]

Actually I would say that x-fire could very well be a success down the road. Not that I want one, one card is plenty noisy enough for me, but I am weird that way. As far as the worst vid card in history - without a doubt the trident 1 mb. :beer:

 

[BFG10K]

I think people would have got over the second place performance if not for the fan noise.

Second place? Hang on, I thought you wanted the best possible hardware?

The word "bias" doesn't do you justice.

 

[Hacp]

Dammit! I didn't know that the 5800Ultra was that good. I could have bought one for 60 bucks but I heard it was crap so i #2ed t instead.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: southpawuni
Without doubt, Crossfire. Many old video cards can display above 16x12@60hz.
For me, even the 1600x1200 is useless if it cant go above 60hz. Too low, flicker fest.

All those other solutions are long in the past. Crossfire is not only historys greatest trajedy, its history in the making.


I think an option needs added to the list though that would top them all
ATI Video Drivers. Why? Because they are the greatest tragedy, its a continuing let-down.
The rest, including Crossfire, are one shot failures (hopefully).
While NV supports all the way back to the TNT in their drivers, the same can't be said for ATI. Now, ATI is dropping support for all their products older than the R300 in Vista.

I've never had a problem with ATi drivers, maybe little niggles, but the same can be said for nVidia drivers as well.
Also, doesn't Vista have a PS2.0 requirement, which means cards older than R300, which don't support PS2 CAN'T work in Vista anyway?

As a result, it was implied, there will be two levels of Vista-supporting hardware: one for DX9, the other for DX10,