Doug,
What happens when (and if ) Intel includes these kinds of capabilities in the CPU?
I know of no CPU plans through the Merced chip (1999) that will include 3D capabilities. That's not to say that 5 years from now we won't have full-blown 3D on the CPU, but it will take some major process shrinkage (< .18 microns) before you can cram the equivalent of the 3Dfx chips on a single die with good yields.
AMD has announced the K6-3D chip that will have some 3D specific instructions but they won't be used until DirectX 6 and I don't expect very good performance (the K6's floating point implementation isn't as fast as Intel's).
What happens when CPUs get 2x, 3x, and 5x the speeds they are today?
Good for 3Dfx. The CPU handles the geometry setup. Faster CPUs means more detailed objects (higher polygon count) and more of them in bigger scenes all being manipulated in real-time.
What would give better performance? A 300 MHz Pentium II CPU without 3Dfx or a 166 Pentium with 3Dfx?
For 3D, the 166/3Dfx combo is much faster. A CPU is not efficient at doing the types of operations a 3D accelerator does, regardless of speed.
I am thinking more and more that 3Dfx is going to be a good long term investment because of their branding, performance, and support from developers. I was concerned about Intel's upcoming i740 3D chip but its performance seems to be only slightly better than a Voodoo1. Not good enough even for Intel to supplant 3Dfx. Does Intel make a sound chip? No, Creative owns that market as 3Dfx will own the 3D market.
All the usual investment advice disclaimers apply.
Good luck, hope you hop on board,
Gary. |
