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: Obewon who wrote (9396)	12/7/1998 12:40:00 PM
From: Tae Spam Kim	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

With the press release today saying 1 million Banshees shipped. That bold's well for Q4. I recalled DLJ's optimistic estimates was 1.2 million, and with 2.5-3 weeks left, TDFX should beat those estimates handily. -Tae Kim

To: Obewon who wrote (9396)	12/7/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: Chip Anderson	Respond to of 16960

Brian Bruning (3Dfx Marketing guy) interview: vup3d.com The entire interview is fairly lightweight, but Brian's answer to this question was extremely disappointing: ============================== Q: Even though using 32-bpp rendering can cause a considerable loss of frame-rate, why not just included it as an option that people can have? Most gamers wouldn't mind playing at 40 fps with a higher rendering quality it seems. A: Including features that add no real value (marginal picture improvement in today's game for significant performance loss) is a waste of time and money. As 32bpp rendering becomes more important in games and can be accomplished without sacrificing performance, I'm sure you'll see us support it. Plus in today's games, the marginal visual quality improvement of 32bpp is only noticeable in static screen shots or while standing still - that's not the way I play my games! ================================= I can (almost) understand omitting 32-bit support from a cost perspective or from a "we will have that soon (wink, wink)" perspective - but DON'T TELL GAMERS WHAT THEY WANT. TDFX had better be _listening_ to what gamers want, not vice-versa. Chip coolhistory.com

To: Obewon who wrote (9396)	12/7/1998 1:46:00 PM
From: Michael G. Potter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16960

The problem is that Voodoo3 (Banshee2) is .25 and a very different chip than Banshee. TMSC only will have so much .35 production space available, and it doesn't make sense for them to set up more if .35 is going to fade (which, btw, is why I like the fact that 3Dfx is fabless - lots of temptation to keep using older technology to avoid extra cost but you end up losing market share). 3Dfx has indicated that more OEM's are coming. I'm glad that they're being careful with not overdoing it. I'd rather have a very happy Gateway and a good reputation (= long-term sales)than several unhappy OEM's (which would mean a good Q4 and then terrible quarters afterwards as OEM's switch due to poor service). Michael

To: Obewon who wrote (9396)	12/7/1998 5:42:00 PM
From: Scott Garee	Respond to of 16960

A .35 Banshee line can't be converted to a .25 V3 line. The lines are completely different technology/equipment in different fabs. Remember TDFX also said they wouldn't stretch themselves too thin by overcommitting to too many OEM's. If retail sales were surprisingly high they may not have had enough capacity left to bring other OEM's on line. I'd rather have the high margin retail while it's available. V3 will bring plenty of OEM's. Are Pat and I the only ones who see how magnificently this has all played out? People were crying about how underpowered Banshee was and, to quote a GM VP, "they're selling every one they can paint black." TDFX' plan has been right on target. 1999 is going to be the year of TDFX and we haven't even seen the next generation part.