PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Article


Pages : [1] 2

fingermouth
12-18-03, 01:51 PM
I was reading the site about 3DFX being baught out by Nvidia. Wow i still can't believe Nvidia Put Nlails in 3DFX's Caufon. Was this a power trip to destroy the Competition Kinda like what M$ does. I think it was a horrible thing because i was a 3dfx fan back than.

I been buying Nvidia Cards know for 3 years since the demise of 3dfx, but after reading the article, im kinda of discusted with Nvidia know but it won't change my shopping option toward the compnay. Suing a company knowing it wouldn't be around much longer. They just added more dirt to the grave. Lol know Nvidia is eating Ati's lunch in graphics. Maybe former 3dfx employees are working with ATI to make Nvidia suck it in the graphics card wars. Interesting plan of stradegy to pay back for hurting the good old boys of 3dfx.

This is not going to change my loyalty for Nvidia Cards because i like them and there easy to set up so that is why im an Nvidia fan, but im not happy for what they did to 3dfx. Oh well we will have to see what happens in the future. Nvidia knows not to throw punches with ATI. There in the lead and they aint scared by Nvidia by no mean

The point of this thread is to see how competition can hurt companies besides their product. Its all about who is on top and Nvidia must of been scared of 3dfx so they sued there ass off to casue 3dfx to fold. no hard feelings but that was terrible.

Anyone have any thoughts on this travesty of justice between Nvidia and 3dfx?

John Reynolds
12-18-03, 02:51 PM
Yeah, I think this was discussed to death three years ago.

fingermouth
12-18-03, 03:03 PM
yea, but its fresh in our minds know with the article. I don't want to bring up old news but with this article, i figured that i would post this thread to see how people today feel about Nvidia and 3DFX.

euan
12-18-03, 04:27 PM
bought,
nails,
coffin,
then not than,
now not know,
disgusted,
opinion not option?
strategy,
they're not there,
their not there (x10),
aren't not aint,


KTHXBYE!

Edge
12-18-03, 04:49 PM
Yeah, I didn't find out about the way Nvidia killed off 3dfx until earlier this year, and I used to really like 3dfx cards (Antialiasing all the way, baby!). I really wish hostile takeovers like that were not allowed. The only thing sadder then the 3dfx demise was the Aureal demise (DAMN YOU CREATIVE! I'LL GET YOU FOR THAT!).

walkndude
12-18-03, 06:05 PM
I can't believe this crap is gonna start over again, the article kinda forgot that 3dfx went bankrupt... they couldnt pay their creditors and could not procure any additional monies to continue day to day operations.

Nvidia just bought up the left overs of a company which had run itself into the ground through extremely poor business decisions(buying stb inorder to manufacture their own cards -they never recovered from it).

fingermouth
12-18-03, 06:39 PM
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Creative done the same thing with Aureal. Its a marketing and dominating industry and if their is competition than you have problems with envey and problems. I will wtill like Nvidia and Creative but i don't like their business practices. This could turn into a heated dicusion so enjoy the topic and if so shut the ****er down if you have too.

gstanford
12-18-03, 08:36 PM
nVidia didn't do a thing to hurt 3dfx, 3dfx slaughtered themselves without any outside help.

Old 3dfx fans ought to be grateful nVidia bought parts of 3dfx for $100 million. They had no obligation to and my personal opinion is that they paid way too much money for the assets they received in return.

The Baron
12-18-03, 09:20 PM
Let's see.

Riva TNT2--32-bit color, nice and fast, on time, and generally a good buy.

Voodoo3--16-bit color, not very fast compared to TNT2, and not generally a good buy except for games that required Glide.

GeForce - 32-bit color, nice and fast again, T&L, and generally a good buy.

Voodoo5--32-bit color, nice and not so fast, no T&L but OMG TEH T-BUFFER!!!!1111oneoneoneoneoneone, and not generally a good buy.

Yup, all NVIDIA's fault. They made good products versus 3dfx! AGH!

fingermouth
12-18-03, 09:21 PM
They didn't have to sue them though. That put preasure on 3DFX and left 3dfx with no choice but to give in the Nvidia. There is no excuse for Nvidia's tacticks at the time, but 3DFX didn't do much either to help themselves. They didn't listen to the fans who really make this industry what it is. I baught both 3DFX and Nvidia Products and i was happy with both of them.

Know if im wrong about this, than tell me. I just didn't see why Nnidia had to get involved in the first place. Its called mine your own business. Dodn't wurry about what we do.

Know if someone tried to sue me, i would either brake their legs or make their life miseriable. If 3dfx was going under, they didn't need help from Nvidia. I know that 3dfx had problems with STB and had problems with product dates. There was no excuse for their demise but they didn't help either.

Good Day:

StealthHawk
12-18-03, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by fingermouth
They didn't have to sue them though. That put preasure on 3DFX and left 3dfx with no choice but to give in the Nvidia. There is no excuse for Nvidia's tacticks at the time, but 3DFX didn't do much either to help themselves. They didn't listen to the fans who really make this industry what it is. I baught both 3DFX and Nvidia Products and i was happy with both of them.

3dfx sued NVIDIA and NVIDIA filed a counter-suit.

gstanford
12-18-03, 09:29 PM
Yes, what stealthhawk said is correct. 3dfx sued nVidia over alleged claims that nVidia stole their multi-texturing technology.

fingermouth
12-18-03, 10:21 PM
That was stupid, no wonder Nvidia Rebeled. I admit 3dfx ****ed up their company. They whould have never got involved with Nvidia in the first place. Look what happen. But there is no excuse for lawsuites in the first place. Who cares what Technology was ripped of. So you use someones rendering techniques. Who cares. Its what you can do with it. Its like a cookie recipt, yea you use alot of the same ingrediants but don't bithc over who uses what as long as the cookies taste good.

Edge
12-18-03, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by The Baron
Let's see.

Riva TNT2--32-bit color, nice and fast, on time, and generally a good buy.

32 bit color was practically useless back then (how many games were actually playable on a TNT2 in 32 bit color?) Not to mention very marginal IQ gains in most situations. Lets see...run the game at 1024x768 in 16 bit color, or at 640x480 in 32 bit color? It's kinda like DX9 effects with FX5200 cards, really.

Voodoo3--16-bit color, not very fast compared to TNT2, and not generally a good buy except for games that required Glide.

Change that to any games that SUPPORTED Glide. If the game had a glide mode, the Voodoo 3 ran circles around the TNT2 (and sometimes even the Geforce 1). It was funny seeing my friend's 400 mghz computer with a TNT2 Ultra run as fast as my 200mhz with a Voodoo 3 in games like Unreal Tournament and Carmageddon 2 at 1024x768. Not to mention Glide sometimes supported more effects then D3D did (fog in Carmageddon 2, colored lighting in Diablo 2, etc.) And back then, a very large portion of games supported glide, and a few were Glide-only. And I NEVER found 16-bit color to be a limitation in any games that I played back then, in fact I remember the first application that really made me wish I had a 32-bit card was 3dmark 2001 so that I could complete a real benchmark with it. I only started noticing 16-bit artifacting when I got my GF2MX card (which ironicly wasn't even fast enough to play games in 32-bit color at a decent resolution).
Though just how much faster was a TNT2 then a Voodoo 3 in D3D apps? I don't recall any HUGE difference between my Voodoo 3 and my friend's TNT2 in games like Sacrifice. Oh, but I must say: TNT2 Vanta/M64s sucked...hard.

GeForce - 32-bit color, nice and fast again, T&L, and generally a good buy.

32 bit color actually being usable was certainly a nice option, and T&L was a step in the right direction, though it later became almost useless once you got faster CPUs that could compensate for the extra workload (since it only lifted 100-200 mghz off the CPU in most cases). Also I found out that if your game is GPU limited, enabling Hardware T&L actually DECREASED performence. Odd how T&L seemed like such a huge deal from the hype, but when you actually used it the performence increase was minimal at best unless you were on a very slow (300 mhz or less) CPU. Huh, PR hype exadurating features? Where have I heard that before *cough*CG*cough*.

Voodoo5--32-bit color, nice and not so fast, no T&L but OMG TEH T-BUFFER!!!!1111oneoneoneoneoneone, and not generally a good buy.

That "OMG TEH T-BUFFER" offered features that were totally unmatched until the R3x00 series. It's just that back then, nobody cared about AA (I remember many review sites either totally ignored it, or simply said it was "slightly better" then Nvidia's and didn't consider it a major part of the compairision). But for some reason, when the Geforce 3 came out, and later with the Radeon 9700, everyone was all over AA like it was god's gift to gaming. Well no wonder Geforce card owners didn't care about AA: the IQ increase was so marginal compaired to the performence hit that it simply wasn't worth it! Granted, they pushed the "T-buffer" effects a bit too much, but had games actually used it we may have seen "Pixel Shader-like" features in games (since I remember many of the effects they advertised being similar to the effects I got on my GF3 card). But why is it the Pixel Shading features of the GF3 got so much more attention then the T-buffer? Granted, Pixel Shaders were more universal, but for 6 months the GF3 was the only card on the market that could use them, and the card cost $400 when it was released. Did ONE benchmark showing off pixel shading really convince people that the feature was "all that"? Though I'm wondering why everyone was against 3dfx for their hype of the T-buffer, but noone seemed to question Hardware T&L or even 32-bit color.

Oh, and the Voodoo 5 was a terrific competator against the Geforce 1...it's just that it was delayed so much (mainly due to a shortage of parts from the factories for it) that it wasn't out until the Geforce 2 was, which hurt it considerably. But again, Glide games ran amazing on it, up to the D3D equivalent of a Geforce 3. Glide games were becoming rare, but there were still some popular ones released (such as Deus Ex, which was MURDER on Geforce cards).

Yup, all NVIDIA's fault. They made good products versus 3dfx! AGH!
More like they both made good products, but with different strengths. Playing Unreal Tournament on a V5 with 2xAA humiliated the Geforce 2 in every way, just as playing...uh...I donno, what games back then ran SUBSTANTIALLY better on the Geforce 2 then on the V5? At least I can't remember any reviews that really put the Voodoo 5 below Geforce 1 levels at the lowest, which wasn't to big of a step down from the Geforce 2 (especially MX)

3dfx sued because they wanted compensation for Nvidia using their rendering methods when they were the ones who put the R&D time into them (though I'm not sure if an independant party ever said who was right in that case), but Nvidia sued because they saw 3dfx in a weakened state and decided to finish them off (much like what Creative did to Aureal). Oh, and didn't Nvidia's have something to do with the delay of the V5?

Anyway, end of rant. I just get annoyed when people proclaim one company the best simply because the other side lost. It wouldn't suprise me if Nvidia died and in 3-4 years we get people talking about how crappy all their cards were and how ATI cards were always superior but we never realised it until later. THEN I'm sure people will be laughing at CG and Forceware drivers even more then they are today (though I doubt Nvidia will die, to be honest).

Cotita
12-18-03, 11:24 PM
At least nvidia was able to recover from a "failed" product launch.

The geforceFX5800 is nvidia's Voodoo 5, it was expensive and completely annihilated by the radeon 9700, even the 9500 pro could beat the 5800 in many benchmarks.

nvidia rectified and released the 5900 and later the 5950 and after dozens of drivers releases and optimizations, nvidia finally has a great card.

3dfx is gone because of bad financial decisions and failed product releases, not because of nvidia.

They lost the x-box deal to nvidia and had no way to recover.

Too bad they couldn't get a second chance, I can only imagine what a voodoo 7 could do.

Edge
12-18-03, 11:39 PM
Yeah, Nvidia managed to take a failed product and turn it into a success (though in the process pissed off many customers), whereas 3dfx hit one bump in the road and had to call it quits. But I'm suprised it hit them as hard as it did...and I'm also suprised that they weren't able to get any developers to sign on for "3dfx exclusive" features with the T-buffer (in lue of "The way it's meant to be played!").

But I thought the console deal they lost was the Dreamcast to PowerVR. Which they sued over btw, not a very good decision on their part at all. At least the Nvidia multi-texturing lawsuit held SOME ground. By the time Xbox was in development I'm pretty sure 3dfx was already bought out and shut down.

And yeah, 3dfx's future cards certainly seemed to have potential. If even half the things were true about Rampage, it could've killed the competition easilly (well, in performence and features anyway, price might've been another story). Too bad Nvidia didn't want to try and develop 3dfx's card further or use technology from it in their own cards, 4 years later Nvidia cards STILL don't have AA as good as 3dfx's.

gstanford
12-18-03, 11:49 PM
3dfx were in no position to recover from a failed product because they had spent most of their capital (close to $200 million) acquiring STB and Gigapixel. When the failure came they had no resources free to devote to fixing the problem.

3dfx were originally in the running for the x-box bidding. Its probably a good job they failed there though - imagine if they had succeeded, constant fights between them and microsoft over the API and GLIDE becoming firmly entrenched because of a presence in both PCs and consoles. Yuck, no thank you.

fingermouth
12-18-03, 11:56 PM
Damn Edge, i like you alot man. Very good points. I was wondering why my Voodoo 3 and 5 did good in Glide mode. Im glad someone sticks up for 3dFX, besides me. Edge you will always be in my heart man. You have made some very good points about Nvdia and 3dFX. I don't have much to say know. You pretty much covered those bases for me man.

Cotita
12-18-03, 11:59 PM
3dfx did loose the Dreamcast deal to PowerVR, Gigapixel wich was aquired by 3dfx lost the X-box deal

I think that buying gigapixel (185 million if I recall) only worsened 3dfx's situation. Not 3dfx nor nvidia benefited from gigapixel technology.

gstanford
12-19-03, 12:08 AM
3dfx bought gigapixel because of the likelyhood they would get the x-box contract.

I'll agree with you about gigapixel not benefitting anyone.

The only reason I ever saw for nVidia to grab any 3dfx assets was to settle once and for all the multi-texturing issue. That could have been done for $20 million or so.

I'd have let other people pick up the gigapixel assets. The time involved in actually bringing a decent TBR to market means that the money spent on the (by now outdated) tech is essentially worthless anyhow.

Edge
12-19-03, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by gstanford
3dfx were originally in the running for the x-box bidding. Its probably a good job they failed there though - imagine if they had succeeded, constant fights between them and microsoft over the API and GLIDE becoming firmly entrenched because of a presence in both PCs and consoles. Yuck, no thank you.

Actually 3dfx was all set to give up Glide after the V5 6000. The Rampage was based on an entirely new chipset, and would only support Glide through software emulation. They were going to focus their efforts on D3D and OpenGL, as well as their new AA and Anisotropic methods.

Though I didn't realise that Gigapixel was such a costly investment for them. I was under the impression that by the time MS was choosing a video card manufacturer for the Xbox that 3dfx had already been bought out by Nvidia. I didn't think they would've been willing to buy something as expensive as that just for a chance to get on the console videocard bandwagon (which helped Nvidia out a bit). They must've really been desperate...

And I'm glad I could make you happy Finger. I usually try to be videocard agnostic when it comes to things like this, but I felt I needed to stick up for 3dfx a bit in this situation. Nothing will bring them back, but I didn't want them to have such a bad name when I personally think they did so quit a bit for the industry (and I don't think they're given as much credit as they deserve for some things). Glide is usually overlooked when compairing cards, even though it was the saving grace of the Voodoo cards (back then I was amazed at how great UT looked at 1024x768 resolution and still managed 40 FPS on my Voodoo 3 card).

Though after looking back on technology back then, I'm amazed 3d acceleration made any kind of an impact at all. A large number of PC developers basicly ignored 3d accleration altogeather because it was difficult to program around (just ask Epic Games or the group behind Trespasser). And back then it almost seemed to impose more limitations then it lifted. I can see why most developers didn't even support 3d acceleration until 2000 or so. There were still quite a few games released in 1999 that either didn't support 3d acceleration, or if they did it was supported badly. And I must say, I was very impressed with some of the effects from Outcast for a non-accelerated game. I think of Glide as a stepping stone between software mode and hardware acceleration for developers, since it was relativly easy for developers to add a Glide mode onto a software-rendered game (at least compaired to D3D and even OpenGL). It wasn't until Nvidia became the dominant power that most developers put a real effort into making thier games D3D compatable.

fingermouth
12-19-03, 03:09 AM
Actually edge my name is Doug I used the Fingermouth Name because i was drunk that night and i wrote a comic book around ET and Lizards and Fingermouth was the name. ANyway back to the subject, I thought 3d rendered games came out in 96 when GL quake came out. That was one of the first hardware acclerated games to come out and than Turak and Quake 2. I agree with you about Glide being a stepping stone for todays API's But it looked damn good back in the day. it would make Quake 2 brighter and more richer in textures. They did make some strange business deals but we have learned from this that you don't buy something you can't use. Im happy with my FX but i could do better by ATI but im loyal now with Nvidia so i have no hard feelings toward them.

And Edge you are awsome with this topic, a appreciate your imput alot on here today. I hope this thread could bring out some fans but we all know that they were the good days but life goes on.


What i think should of happen is the guys leftover from the 3dfx days should of got together and made something knew. They did X3dfx drivers for Windows XP and 2k and some 9x stuff but aleast they keep the fans something to play with .

And finally for the V5 6k that is some nice hardware for 2k maybe would have been the GF2 killer but maybe.

Good Day

John Reynolds
12-19-03, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by The Baron
Let's see.

Riva TNT2--32-bit color, nice and fast, on time, and generally a good buy.

Voodoo3--16-bit color, not very fast compared to TNT2, and not generally a good buy except for games that required Glide.

It took a TnT2 Ultra to outperform a V3 3000 and it cost like 40% more at the time. But its lack of 32-bit output made it look dated to those swayed by marketeers.

GeForce - 32-bit color, nice and fast again, T&L, and generally a good buy.

Voodoo5--32-bit color, nice and not so fast, no T&L but OMG TEH T-BUFFER!!!!1111oneoneoneoneoneone, and not generally a good buy.

Yup, all NVIDIA's fault. They made good products versus 3dfx! AGH!

I ran a V5 and a GF2 Ultra in 2000 and I sold the latter. The V5 simply could render image quality the GF couldn't match. Yes the GF2 was significantly faster in fill rate intensive games such as Q3, but in a lot of other games (NOLF, Deus Ex) at the time, the V5 ran better and looked better. Unfortunately for 3dfx, titles like NOLF and Deus Ex weren't popular benchmarks; also unfortunately for 3dfx image quality wasn't scrutinized to the degree it now is. Look up Mike's xS stuff and how it gives "AF like image quality" (too lazy to look it up) and you'll see why I used to argue that the texture filtering was better on my V5 with AA enabled and the LOD bias adjusted than on my GF2 Ultra (despite its trilinear/AF support). Man, did I used to get flamed for that opinion.

Don't get me started on Nvidia's 2D quality back then either. Blech! So were 3dfx's products really inferior or were they merely perceived as being inferior? I think there was a lot of FUD back then over their last few products missing the latest DX features and that's hard to quantify. I expect to see this return next spring if one of the new high-end products has what is perceived as more advanced feature support, in spite of the fact that DX9 support isn't that strong yet.

Hellbinder
12-19-03, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by The Baron
Let's see.

Riva TNT2--32-bit color, nice and fast, on time, and generally a good buy.

Voodoo3--16-bit color, not very fast compared to TNT2, and not generally a good buy except for games that required Glide.

GeForce - 32-bit color, nice and fast again, T&L, and generally a good buy.

Voodoo5--32-bit color, nice and not so fast, no T&L but OMG TEH T-BUFFER!!!!1111oneoneoneoneoneone, and not generally a good buy.

Yup, all NVIDIA's fault. They made good products versus 3dfx! AGH!
I am not so sure i agree with you on this one... err these...

The Baron
12-19-03, 10:37 AM
Except I also forgot that the Voodoo5 was how delayed again?