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 : 3DFX -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug Fowler who wrote (1077)	12/6/1997 10:40:00 AM
From: Peter S.	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 16960

Doug, I doubt that I can answer all your questions but here is what I think I know. Q. What happens when (and if ) Intel includes these kinds of capabilities in the CPU? A. Intel don't seem too interested in 'cluttering' up their chips with a whole new set of instructions that wouldn't get used much. MMX is not multimedia on a CPU, quote Intel CEO Andy Grove "But we don't do the multimedia, we don't do audio processing on the microprocessor, we just have instructions in the microprocessor that allow those types of instructions to be processed faster. We didn't include those functions, we accelerated their processing on the chip." Read this link posted earlier by Stephen Wall: upside.com Q. What happens when CPUs get 2x, 3x, and 5x the speeds they are today? A. Same answer as above. Also in another Stephen Wall link is this quote from 3Dfx's CoB Gordon Campbell "With Intel, the beauty of the 3Dfx architecture is that it relies on the microprocessor enough that as Intel's processors' performance increases, it scales up our architecture. So every time Intel makes an improvement in its processor, we get an increase in performance because we designed the two to work together. We're basically able to piggyback on everything Intel does."? redherring.com Q. What would give better performance? A 300 MHz Pentium II CPU without 3Dfx or a 166 Pentium with 3Dfx? A. I assume you are talking about 3D rendering because that's all 3Dfx does. Without a 3D accelerator, you would at least need a graphics card with some 3D capability if you want to run a 3D application. In that case the best the machine could manage is to do Direct3D well. D3D is a software interface that will pull some generic 3D functionality from your graphics card. 3Dfx allows developers to utilize its own set of features (lighting, Z-buffering etc) while not relying too much on the CPU. Depending on the game, but a game written for 3Dfx will look better on a P166 with 3Dfx but it will load faster on a P300 and may be easier to play. Q. Might Intel license the 3Dfx technology and incorporate it into the CPU? A. Already answered. Q. How much does 3Dfx get per card from OEMs like Creative? A. Don't know. Q. What are the chances a company like Creative or Intel would try to buy out 3Dfx? A. One can only speculate. Intel are major shareholders in 3Dfx. They seem to have a friendly relationship and I think they even share some Board Members. I think that if anyone was going to buy 3Dfx it would be Intel, but I would hate to see 3Dfx lose its identity. Next thing you know 3Dfx won't function with AMD chips :(. Peter S

To: Doug Fowler who wrote (1077)	12/6/1997 4:30:00 PM
From: Gary Hoyer	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 16960

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.