Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AMD:News, Press Releases and Information Only! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (2455)	11/23/1997 5:17:00 PM
From: Alex Balazs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6843

You have answered this question yourself. There is no economical reason to move all 3-D pipeline stages to a totally self-contained 3D processor - the CPU could do some usefull job besides interrupt processing from a mouse. Such a 3-D system is more "balanced". Hmmmm, does this mean that games would have to be written to take advantage of this? I mean, written so that the geometry is set up by the CPU and then rendered by the 3D Card? Or is this the way games work currently? If this is the way games are written currently, so that using a K6-3D with a Voodoo2 addon card will result in faster performance than a PII with the same Voodoo2 card, then I can certainly see the advantage of these 3D instructions. But if all the work is now done by the 3D Card, and games would have to be written in such a way that allows these tasks to be shared, then AMD will probably have an uphill battle to get companies to create products that will work this way.....because game companies would probably be hard to convince to write their games for two different systems, one using Intel CPU's and one using AMD CPU's. Unless DirectX is involved in all this in some way making it all standardized....in that case, I can see this working...... Hoping for the best, Alex