If we're arguing semantics, I feel like these early cards are more fitting to the "3D accelerator" name than the modern ones. They were specialized for accelerating 3D graphics (which, in the end, means pushing triangles into a 2D framebuffer). Modern GPUs are more like general-purpose vector processors that happen to also be good at calculations related to 3D graphics and can (sometimes) render triangles to a framebuffer.

i'd argue that 3d-accelerated graphics from that era is still true 3d acceleration. of course, back then the pipelines were mostly fixed - nothing like programable shaders - but you're passing in 3d-coordinates, generating some matrices to determine the MVP, passing in some textures, and getting most of that "heavy lifting" of getting the pixels on the screen from the API & card.

> they were basically very fast (for the time) 2D triangle renderers.

that's still true of GPUs today :) in fact, with the exception of h264/265 encode/decode, and "AI" - that's all that graphics cards have ever done!

GLIDE was low level, it would map to Vulkan perfectly.

Being 2D rasterizers was arguably true for some cheap early graphics chips like that of the PS1. For Voodoos, there was no point in the pipeline after which rendering is “only 2D” in any relevant sense. At the time, the Z coordinate was passed to the hardware and used e.g. for important things like perspective correct texture lookup, environment maps (fake reflections), and Z buffering — that is right until the very last moment of committing the pixel to memory.

They also do texture mapping, shading, and z buffering. Those things are still the core of 3D rendering.