SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Patrick Grinsell who wrote (8740)11/2/1998 8:57:00 PM
From: Patrick Grinsell  Respond to of 16960
 
Creative Takeover News (ripped from yahoo):

Here's to Waging A Proxy Battle in 3D.(3Dfx Interactive Inc. considers sale )
Mergers & Acquisitions Report - Oct 26, 1998
By Judy Radler Cohen

The silicon chips may soon be flying as 3Dfx Interactive, Inc. squares off against a major customer
and shareholder that could attempt to push 3Dfx into selling itself.

Last Monday, Singapore-based Cre-ative Technology Ltd. filed a 13D on $160 million market cap
3Dfx, of which it owns 6.5%. In the filing, Creative stated it may contact other shareholders to
discuss "an extraordinary corporate transaction involving the issurer, and/or changes in the board of
directors or management."

The day of the filing, 3Dfx stock traded as high as $11.25 a share before closing, unchanged, at
$11.

Creative, whose U.S. sub, Creative Labs, Inc. is based in Milpitas, Calif., purchased its stake in 21
blocks from Sept. 8 through Oct. 16 for as low as $8.48 and as high as $12.91 per share. At
presstime, 3Dfx closed at roughly $10.56 a share.

Creative manufactures peripherals and multimedia products for the personal computer industry. A
marriage between 3Dfx and Creative would resolve 3Dfx's distribution problems, said a high-tech
equity analyst, speaking off the record.

"I think Creative will ultimately own 3Dfx," the analyst predicted. A 3Dfx takeover would be part of
the industry's natural progression of strong distributors buying chip companies, he said. Additionally,
Creative is sitting on $450 million in cash, he noted. And as far as takeout valuations, he stated,
"3Dfx is clearly worth, because of its brand recognition, $20 per share [or $312 million]." He
pegged $25 a share, or $390 million, as the "real high end."

Meanwhile, 3Dfx may still be viewing Creative's action as somewhat benign.

Creative's move was a "very friendly acquisition of 3Dfx [shares]," said a 3Dfx board member who
requested anonymity. Creative informed the company a few days prior to its filing, he noted.

He characterized the accumulation of 3Dfx shares as a "defensive move on Creative's part."
Creative is one of 3Dfx's largest customers, but, he added, "Creative is only one customer of
ours-we have a lot of customers." A public company since June, 1997, 3Dfx develops 3D media
processors and software for interactive electronic use.

And 3Dfx's plans for dealing with Creative's potential takeover/proxy battle designs?

At the next board meeting, the members will discuss putting anti-takeover provisions, such as a
poison pill, in the by-laws, the board member said. He could not pinpoint when the board would
convene next.

Regardless, 3Dfx is not for sale, he continued. When asked if the company's substantial venture
capital shareholder base was not contemplating cashing out, he remarked, "I can assure you not at
these levels." The company's stock has slid dramatically from its $35.25-per-share 52-week high,
which it hit this past May. It went public at $11 a share.

Dave Zacarias, the CFO of San Jose-based 3Dfx, did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Several calls placed to John Danforth and Craig McHugh, Creative Labs' general counsel and
president, respectively, were not returned by presstime.

For the third quarter, 3Dfx posted earnings of $3 million on revenue of $33 million, compared to a
loss of $872,000 on revenue of $10 million for the year-earlier period.

***********************

Creative has hired an investment firm to look into their M&A alternatives. If I get the name of the firm, I will forward it on.

Pat



To: Patrick Grinsell who wrote (8740)11/2/1998 9:03:00 PM
From: micren@aol.com  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16960
 
Uhh oh!!!!

I just got the latest issue (December) of PC Gamer. They review both the Diamond Viper V550 and the Diamond Monster Fusion. The Viper V550 got an Editor's Choice award, the Monster Fusion got a qualified good board, good price, BUT........

The heading for the Diamond Viper article was "N-Vidia's next generation TNT chip is faster than the law should allow". The minuses of the card were that it needed a minimum Pentium II to work effectively, and that it didn't work with Glide API only supported games. The bottom line was that PC Gamer claims it's the fastest chip we'll see in months.

For the Monster Fusion the heading was "3Dfx goes after the coveted 2D/3D market again, but is this just a Voodoo Rush in Monster's clothing?" The whole crux of the article was that "while there's nothing much wrong with the Monster Fusion.... It lacks a couple of key features that will keep keep this card from being the success it could otherwise be". The main feature they focus on is the Banshee's 16 bit color palette, vs the 24-32 bit of other cards (and no second texture mapping unit, or SLI capability). The bottom line was that it's a fantastic card for the average gamer at a reasonable price.

One interesting thing to note was the benchmarks. In Direct3D the Banshee beats the TNT by a small margin at high resolutions and a large margin at lower resolutions, something that PC Gamer doesn't really focus on. The benchmarks for Forsaken, Quake, Quake2, Duke Nukem 3d were pretty close at smaller resolutions but at higher ones the TNT won out by about 10 frames/sec.

Let's hope the rumors posted that Banshee is selling like hotcakes vs slow moving TNT's are true. I've always maintained that the Banshee will sell best among people with low to mid range PC's who want to spend as little as possible. Exactly the "average" gamer.