Slashdot Mirror


The Last Days at 3dfx

sand writes "FiringSquad has a detailed account of what happened in the final days at 3dfx. Every 3dfx product that was released or upcoming is discussed by a former 3dfx employee with inside knowledge on what caused the product delays (including an employee who forgot to fly to Asia to pickup the first Voodoo5 chips). He also discusses money mismanagement and the STB merger. It's a very enlightening article for anyone who's interested in 3D graphics and what goes on inside these companies."

14 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Competition by e8johan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what competition is all about. When a company cannot deliver the best product to the best price they don't get any income. If you don't have and income and spend alot without being able to overtake your competators, you will enventually run out of money. It is not fun, but reality in a market economy.

    Eventually we will see this when it comes to ATI and nVidia, or they will find a niche market to survive in. The big profit will go to the one making the best product at the best price.

    Note - I do not critisize market economy, without it we would probably not have hardware accelerated 3D for home computers at all!

    1. Re:Competition by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've missed the point. There is not supposed to be a Final Winner, or else we all lose. As soon as there is a Final Winner, competition dies. At any one generation, the Winner gets better profits and the right to compete on the next generation. But you want there to be a runner-up who will viably go on to the next generation, as well.

      We have let Microsoft color our thinking too much, fill us with envy, and convince us that this is The Business Model.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  2. rejecting the gpl? by Mattygfunk · · Score: 5, Funny
    For obvious reasons our source would like to remain anonymous....

    Grrrrr closed source.

    -----
    sexy sexy wallpaper mmmmmmmmmmmm

  3. They didn't innovate enough by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They should have added useful features and clever thinking that circumvented the problems that plagued the other companies. AGP Texture bandwidth could have been solved by texture compression, but S3 ended up doing that. 32 bit colour was implemented by everyone except 3DFX. They could have saved a lot fo bandwidth if they'd have come up with better Z buffer algorithms, but PowerVR did that. They could have added programmable graphics, but that was left to ATI. They could have put T&L on the card, but that was left to Nvidia.

    3DFX failed because they didn't innovate

    1. Re:They didn't innovate enough by CoolVibe · · Score: 5, Insightful
      3DFX failed because they didn't innovate

      No, it failed because of braindead and utterly stupid upper management. Most companies die that way.

      It's always the management that screws it up. Remember that. Read Dilbert. Understand it. Make it your corporate religion. Prevent falling on your face. Oh, and don't forget: laugh.

    2. Re:They didn't innovate enough by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      3DFX failed because they didn't innovate

      That's silly. 3dfx innovated like crazy:

      * First high performance consumer level 3D card for PCs.
      * First multitexturing in a PC card.
      * First trilinear filtering in a PC card.
      * Glide API, back when Direct3D and OpenGL were poorly supported on the PC.
      * Higher precision color blending with 16 bits per pixel. Operations occurred internally at 22-bits, I think.
      * Able to connect multiple Voodoo 2's together for--what was then--unheard of performance.

      Let's not rewrite history to fit your own ideas, okay?

  4. Voodoo cards by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At the start of the consumer 3d graphics business Voodoo were clearly superior, I still have a Voodoo 1 laying around somewhere, there were problems; the whole passthrough cable thing, the lack of windowed support & 16bit clour were all problematic. As an upgrade Voodoo offered the second revision that could run in SLI mode. It required two PCI slots in addition to your 2d graphics card and was horrendously expensive.

    nVidia released the TNT that offered similar performance, in one card (not 3!), did 32 bit colour and was significantly cheaper.

    3DFX was never competitive from then on, offering weaker, more expensive products that relied on brand name support.

    The widespread adoption of D3D / OpenGL around this time over the proprietary Glide API was the nail in the coffin.

  5. GLIDE by muzzmac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like many others was not concerned with them going. Thier attempt to lock the market in via the proprietray GLIDE API was a blatant move to control the market.

    I'm happy to see the tail end of any company that does this.

    Thier lawsuit against the guy doing the GLIDE wrapper didn't help improve my opinion of them. :-)

    1. Re:GLIDE by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny
      I like many others was not concerned with them going. Thier attempt to lock the market in via the proprietray GLIDE API was a blatant move to control the market.

      We're all really fortunate that we avoided the nightmare of being locked in to a proprietary market controlling API from 3DFX. Luckily, we are in a new enlightened age where most games run on an open, freely shared API fostered by a community of the best minds from every segment of the industry. There's no limit to what can be done with our newfound freedom using APIs like Direct3D...

      Hmm, wait a minute...

    2. Re:GLIDE by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually Glide orignally was a benign move. Back in the day when the Voodoo first was being realised, there weren't any acceptable APIs out there. DirectX was still too primitive to be really taken seriously and OpenGL was just more than the Voodoo could handle quickly. Hence Glide, which was optimised for how the Voodoo hardware worked.

      The first Voodoo really was a pretty amazing hack to make it work at all. When 3dfx first demoed their new card on a simulator, they got laughed at, people said they'd never make it real silicon. It was therough a lot of ingenuity and scaling back features that they managed to build a 3d card at a consumer pricepoint. It was expensive, yes, but not the thousands of dollars pro cards cost.

      Their big problem later was that they really failed to move forward. Technology progressed to the point where you didn't have to make all the compramises and cards like the TNT and TNT2 proved it. Also, Glide was a relic that they should have tried to phase out since DirectX did come to mature and cards had no trouble with OpenGL.

  6. Re:Businesses come and go by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but today there is little need for faster graphics.

    The need for faster and better graphics is exactly why 3dfx died. nVidia caught up and passed them while they were making mistakes like telling people they didn't want or need 32bit colour in 3D games or making 2d/3d cards that didn't hold up to their 3d-only boards.

    --
    -PainKilleR-[CE]
  7. Sure! by zrk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most secret technology is often sent through methods that can be intercepted by halfway decent corporate spies.

  8. Re:Surprising this has not happened with soundcard by Forkenhoppen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Simple; Creative does it with Creative marketing.

    The Audigy, for instance, is little more than a gamer's card. Any serious review of the card that you come across on the internet will tell you this, or if you bought it hoping for some advanced features, you'll find it out for yourself.

    Here are some examples of this Creative marketing:

    - The Audigy does support 24bit/96kHz sound playback, as advertised, but does not actually play it at that. The second it hits the main chip, it's downmixed to 16/44. So while you can play sound at the higher frequency to it, you're not actually going to hear it. (This is what they mean when they plaster 24/96 all over the boxart.)

    - The Audigy does not have independant recording and playback volume controls on the line in. If you wish to record something on a TV tuner, for instance, then you'll have to either listen to it while it records, or turn off the global volume on your soundcard. (Or turn off the speakers.) This makes it impossible to use an Audigy in a PVR setup.

    - The much-touted sub 100dB SNR is only on playback. On recording, the SNR is much higher.

    I haven't been this disappointed in a card since my SB 128 upgrade ran slower than my SB 64. (I suspect the 64 did the soundfonts in hardware; the 128 did them in software.) Looking at the new Audigy 2, it appears that they'll be offering the 24/96 functionality that was insinuated to be present in the original Audigy, but I don't think I'll bite. I think my next card will be a Hoontech.

    And, of course, this is all off-topic..

  9. The Real failure of 3dfx by travail_jgd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry, but you're completely wrong.

    1. The Voodoo 3, 4, and 5 all had integrated 2D and 3D.

    2. If OEMs didn't like add-on cards, why did they sell them preinstalled? I was shopping online for my PC way-back-when, and Voodoo 1 (and eventually Voodoo 2) cards were offered as (overpriced) options. Just like you can get NIC's and CD-RWs as options now.

    3. The GeForce and Radeons weren't the main killers of 3dfx. The other contributing factors were:

    a. Technical limitations. The Voodoo 3 and 4 line weren't much more than fast Banshees. My Voodoo 3 card has most of the same limitations as a Voodoo 1 (16-bit color, 256x256 textures), but almost no additional 3D features (primarily higher screen resolution).

    b. Marketing. The Voodoo 1 and 2 lines were always the fastest in benchmarks. NVidia's TNT line was slower (but had more stable framerates), and Matrox was known for picture quality. When the Voodoo 3/4 came out, 3dfx lost the speed crown, and started talking about "image quality".

    c. NVidia's 6-month release cycle. 3dfx couldn't keep up, and their "older" cards had an outdated feature-set. The GeForce was a big advance, but only in terms of fill-rate; there weren't any games (at that time) taking advantage of the new features. 3dfx lost a lot of the hearts of gamers and enthusiasts when they started pushing back release dates.

    d. Buying STB. I don't think that the purchase was the final nail in 3dfx's coffin, but it certainly didn't provide the desired benefits.