Bill, A few points per your post:
-There isn't that much difference between OpenGL and Direct3D from the chip perspective. Different drivers, of course, but the equations are the same equations for most of the 3D pipeline. Some variation, but not insurmountable. Those two APIs define the 3D space for PCs. So, the current direction is fairly well set. Someday, a different paradigm/architecture may come up, but the current one seems safe for the next few design cycles.
-As you note, ZD benchmarks are very, very important. One number is as deep as most people can go. Fortunately, the ZDBop (Ziff Davis Benchmarking Operations) benchmarks are, frankly, quite good at what they do. So, it's not a bad measure.
-You may very well be right on the 1-2 dominant graphics companies. ATI's goal is to be either the one, or one of those two companies. The market could shape up that way. The deciding factor may not be the hottest implementation of 3D in silicon. Rather it may be a combination of support infrastructure and low cost. In that sense, ATI is fairly well positioned, along with being competitive on the design side. Next five years should tell the tale. After that, I'd bet things will start to firm up and the barriers to entry, particularly on the I.P. level, will be too huge for many start ups to try to enter the biz.
-TXN or the Rock, huh? Think they'd buy a Canadian company? hee-hee-hee.
Ski
P.S. See the December "Upside" magazine for an article by Peter Glaskowsky on 3D graphics. Some good future ideas in there too. |
