4 ms·

Really? Nvidia’s marketing and PR teams are trying to trick people into thinking that they invented GPUs? Does Nvidia have no shame and or scruples? The term "

Really? Nvidia’s marketing and PR teams are trying to trick people into thinking that they invented GPUs? Does Nvidia have no shame and or scruples? The term "GPU" was coined by Sony in reference to the 32-bit Sony GPU (designed by Toshiba) in the PlayStation video game console, released in 1994. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_processing_unit

pests 2y ago
It really depends on what you want to call a "GPU" The device in the PS1 has also been referred to as a "Geometry Transfer Engine" You can see it's features and specs here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_technical_specifications#Graphics_processing_unit_.28GPU.29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_technical_specif... Some may say that it is not a "real GPU" or certain features (like 3d) are missing to make it one. The Nvidia claim is for the GeForce 256 released in 99. This makes me wonder if our grandkids will be debating on what the first "real AI chip" was - would it be what we call a GPU like the H100 or will a TPU get that title?
- archerx 2y ago
  That is just pedantic and a bit disingenuous. 2D/3D accelerators existed before 1999. I actually had one of these cards; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE It sucked but it was technically one of the first "GPU"s. Also let us not forget 3dfx and the Voodoo series cards. Don't let Nvidia rewrite history please.
  - pests 2y ago
    I agree, but a more deeper question in my post was when did the old technology evolve into what we call a GPU today? I don't want to rewrite history either. It's partially telling that you write "2D/3D accelerators" which means that was a different class of thing - if they were a full GPU then you would have called them as such. My point being - what defines what a GPU is? Apparently there were things called GTEs, accelerators, and so on. Some feature or invention crossed the line for us to label them as GPUs. Just like over the last ~10 years we have seen GPUs losing graphical features and picking up NN/AI/LLM stuff to the point we now call these TPUs. Will the future have confusion over the first ~AI CHIP~? Some conversation like "Oh technically that was a GPU but it has also incorporated tensor processing so by todays standards it's an AI CHIP."
    - archerx 2y ago
      > It's partially telling that you write "2D/3D accelerators" which means that was a different class of thing It's because that's what they were called at the time. Just because some one calls a rose a different name doesn't mean it doesn't smell the same. What defines a GPU? it's a compute unit that process graphics, yes it is that simple. There were many cards that did this before Nvidia. An A.I. chip is just a tensor processing unit a TPU, this not that hard to grasp, I think, in my opinion.
      - pests 2y ago
        > What defines a GPU? it's a compute unit that process graphics, yes it is that simple But you originally declared the Sony chip as the first GPU. There were many things that processed graphics before that, as you have declared. Apparently going back to the Amiga in the 70s. It is this muddyness with retroactively declaring tech a certain kind that I'm questing here.
        vidarh 2y ago
        > Apparently going back to the Amiga in the 70s. Development of the Amiga started in 1982, and it was launched in 1985.
        pests 2y ago
        Oops, meant Atari not Amiga. The Tele-Games Video Arcade was released in 77 and renamed to the Atari 2600 in 82.
- Slyfox33 2y ago
  The Geometry Transform Engine is a separate chip. It's a Cpu co-processor, all it does is some basic linear algebra. The Cpu uses it to perform that math faster and then it writes it back to ram where it ships the data off to the actual Gpu, which is something completely separate. (I've written a PSX emulator).
aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
It is technically correct if you take "GPU" to mean "capable of doing 2D and 3D graphics on a single chip." But I think that's hair-splitting to the point of advertisement: the older 3dfx Voodoo was a GPU that handled the 3D math while the video card itself handled the 2D math. And of course that 2D video card itself had a unit which processed graphics! "Both in one chip" is an important milestone but it's pretty arbitrary as a definition of GPU.
- archerx 2y ago
  S3 Virge could do 3d and 2d on the same card and is older than the GeForce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE
  - aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
    Single chip, not single card. The 1997 RIVA 128 really was an integrated chip. But again this is splitting hairs, making a notable technical advancement seem more profound than it really is.
andsoitis 2y ago
Before the first major commercial GPU (NVidia’s GeForce 256 in 1999), graphics processing was handled by graphics accelerators or video cards, which had limited functionality and primarily assisted with 2D rendering tasks. Early computers often used framebuffers and simple video adapters to display basic graphics. Complex tasks were often handled by CPU. It is true that everything exists on a gradient, but for practical purposes we have to draw the line somewhere and it seems reasonable to me to draw it roughly here.

pests 2y ago

It really depends on what you want to call a "GPU" The device in the PS1 has also been referred to as a "Geometry Transfer Engine" You can see it's features and specs here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_technical_specifications#Graphics_processing_unit_.28GPU.29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_technical_specif... Some may say that it is not a "real GPU" or certain features (like 3d) are missing to make it one. The Nvidia claim is for the GeForce 256 released in 99. This makes me wonder if our grandkids will be debating on what the first "real AI chip" was - would it be what we call a GPU like the H100 or will a TPU get that title?

archerx 2y ago
That is just pedantic and a bit disingenuous. 2D/3D accelerators existed before 1999. I actually had one of these cards; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE It sucked but it was technically one of the first "GPU"s. Also let us not forget 3dfx and the Voodoo series cards. Don't let Nvidia rewrite history please.
- pests 2y ago
  I agree, but a more deeper question in my post was when did the old technology evolve into what we call a GPU today? I don't want to rewrite history either. It's partially telling that you write "2D/3D accelerators" which means that was a different class of thing - if they were a full GPU then you would have called them as such. My point being - what defines what a GPU is? Apparently there were things called GTEs, accelerators, and so on. Some feature or invention crossed the line for us to label them as GPUs. Just like over the last ~10 years we have seen GPUs losing graphical features and picking up NN/AI/LLM stuff to the point we now call these TPUs. Will the future have confusion over the first ~AI CHIP~? Some conversation like "Oh technically that was a GPU but it has also incorporated tensor processing so by todays standards it's an AI CHIP."
  - archerx 2y ago
    > It's partially telling that you write "2D/3D accelerators" which means that was a different class of thing It's because that's what they were called at the time. Just because some one calls a rose a different name doesn't mean it doesn't smell the same. What defines a GPU? it's a compute unit that process graphics, yes it is that simple. There were many cards that did this before Nvidia. An A.I. chip is just a tensor processing unit a TPU, this not that hard to grasp, I think, in my opinion.
    - pests 2y ago
      > What defines a GPU? it's a compute unit that process graphics, yes it is that simple But you originally declared the Sony chip as the first GPU. There were many things that processed graphics before that, as you have declared. Apparently going back to the Amiga in the 70s. It is this muddyness with retroactively declaring tech a certain kind that I'm questing here.
      - vidarh 2y ago
        > Apparently going back to the Amiga in the 70s. Development of the Amiga started in 1982, and it was launched in 1985.
        pests 2y ago
        Oops, meant Atari not Amiga. The Tele-Games Video Arcade was released in 77 and renamed to the Atari 2600 in 82.
Slyfox33 2y ago
The Geometry Transform Engine is a separate chip. It's a Cpu co-processor, all it does is some basic linear algebra. The Cpu uses it to perform that math faster and then it writes it back to ram where it ships the data off to the actual Gpu, which is something completely separate. (I've written a PSX emulator).

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago

It is technically correct if you take "GPU" to mean "capable of doing 2D and 3D graphics on a single chip." But I think that's hair-splitting to the point of advertisement: the older 3dfx Voodoo was a GPU that handled the 3D math while the video card itself handled the 2D math. And of course that 2D video card itself had a unit which processed graphics! "Both in one chip" is an important milestone but it's pretty arbitrary as a definition of GPU.

archerx 2y ago
S3 Virge could do 3d and 2d on the same card and is older than the GeForce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S3_ViRGE
- aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
  Single chip, not single card. The 1997 RIVA 128 really was an integrated chip. But again this is splitting hairs, making a notable technical advancement seem more profound than it really is.

andsoitis 2y ago

Before the first major commercial GPU (NVidia’s GeForce 256 in 1999), graphics processing was handled by graphics accelerators or video cards, which had limited functionality and primarily assisted with 2D rendering tasks. Early computers often used framebuffers and simple video adapters to display basic graphics. Complex tasks were often handled by CPU. It is true that everything exists on a gradient, but for practical purposes we have to draw the line somewhere and it seems reasonable to me to draw it roughly here.