3dfx People - Check this out (pics)

RLich8 said:
Too bad 3dfx isn't around anymore, as said earlier in the thread...the industry would probably be far ahead of where it's at now.
:(
Click to expand...

Doubt that. Three competitors is too many for this market. Plus, we'd still be stuck with Glide.
 
I have a hard time thinking that 3 competitors in anything is bad. It means there is less chance that we would be in the situation we are in now, where the lead company can just sit on it's hands, because one other company can't compete for over a years time. FWIW, I wish Matrox, Intel and others were in the race for having the lead GPU.

As far as glide goes, MS would still have won the API battle. Don't fear that. I find it a shame that OpenGL is so sparsely used now, thanks to MS:mad:. At least ID software still keeps it real in that respect.
 
A minimum of three competitors is necessary in any industry. Why?

1) As mentioned above, it keeps one company from becoming lazy, just because the ONLY other competition can't keep up.

2) It reduces the temptation to establish unlawful alliances for the intent of price fixing and market fixing. Two companies can easily establish such an alliance. Such alliances can also control the flow of technology that is released, ensuring that their market remains secure.

3) Sheer consumer choice. Even if each of the companies had no technological advantage over the others, market popularity will force the lower companies to strive harder to develop better technology. First and second rank is acceptable to most companies. Nobody wants to be third. So, again you need a third position.

A third (or more) viable enterprise just keeps the competition on it's feet. :)
 
3dfx was great.


Matrox was great too..

heck, I miss my G400 MAX. That card was great.

-Sam
 
All great points, but the unfortunate truth is that the discrete gpu market can't seem to support three competitors. At least that's how things look (as you have seen with VIA, Matrox, and 3dfx). That's why when Intel gets into this business (discrete graphics, not integrated), I see life getting very tough for NVIDIA. ATI has AMD behind it now, but NVIDIA is all by itself. Time will tell...

wjogert said:
A minimum of three competitors is necessary in any industry. Why?

1) As mentioned above, it keeps one company from becoming lazy, just because the ONLY other competition can't keep up.

2) It reduces the temptation to establish unlawful alliances for the intent of price fixing and market fixing. Two companies can easily establish such an alliance. Such alliances can also control the flow of technology that is released, ensuring that their market remains secure.

3) Sheer consumer choice. Even if each of the companies had no technological advantage over the others, market popularity will force the lower companies to strive harder to develop better technology. First and second rank is acceptable to most companies. Nobody wants to be third. So, again you need a third position.

A third (or more) viable enterprise just keeps the competition on it's feet. :)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top