Rumor has it that 3dfx has a new trick up their sleeve, and it has something to do with this:

[Adul]

hardware here an example to prove your theory wrong.

take a cyrix chip fab at .18 micron running at 500 Mhz
a .25 micron PIII chip
and a .25 micron athlon chip.

Which chip is faster?

 

[ElFenix]

heheh cyrix... will they ever make something fast?

 

[Hardware]

Oh boys we are not talking about 2 different techs and about how they could be in one month!
All started last year !
The answer of all is already done
to compare techs compare a single vsa-100 with a single geforce ship !!!


3dxf is stuck with 0,25 (they cant ramp up the vsa100)
nvidia went from 0,22 to 0,18 now they have 0,15
right now 3dfx need 4 chips to compete (in parts!) with a single nvidia chip
this is a fact !

 

[ndee]

Marty: Hey I'm really sorry about that post. I mean, those german who I know, they're pretty much like that. They know everything better, etc. Well yeah, I know, that not _EVERY_ German is like this, but I was so upset about Hardware. I'm really sorry.

Hardware: Sorry, but you are sooooooooooo........ not normal. I'm not sure about it when they changed it, but do you really think a 0.25 Pentium III 700 is slower than a 0.18 Pentium III 700??????????? NO!!!!! It's just smaller and stuff, and for sure, there's less heat, and you _could_ clock the chip higher, but at the same MHz, IT'S EQUAL. There maybe a diffrence, dunno, but not that it would be to consider, if you wanted to buy a CPU. For sure, your advantages are true, but it has NOTHING to do if a CHIP is faster if it's smaller. Got it????????? The Chip Design is the point, not how big the die is!!!!!!

How can be people so narrow minded.....

[Edit]Just read your last post Hardware. Is the GeForce as scale-able as the VSA-100???????? Both chips has it's advantages and disadvantages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/Edit]


This guy is killin' me

 

[ElFenix]

of course they need two vsa 100s to compete with a gts, have you looked at the transistor count on the gts?!?! that was never in question, and it couldn't have been helped had 3dfx gone to .18u! there are tradeoffs involved using either ot them, and you're sitting here treating the processes like there is an absolute right answer, as if God Himself came down and said, "pssst... hey hardware, .18u is absolutely better than .25u in every way, !CONFIRMED!" that didn't happen!

enough of this, i'm gonna go eat bar-b-q

 

[Hardware]

On a short term a 0,25 can be the same as a 0,18 (granted more heat etc)
On a long term 0,25 is a clear looser vs 0.18 (when 0.18 starts to ramp up)







Just a small sidefact:
dave told us the v6000 pulls out 1600x1200x32 fsaax2 65fps!



<< . The production form of the former V5 6000 ran the original Quake 3 Timedemo 1 at 1600x1200 (no FSAA) at 65.1 frames per second >>



Source

 

[DaveB3D]

The VSA-100 was designed to scale like that. It was the plan.

 

[Hardware]

well it doesnt worked out!

 

[Weyoun]

*sigh*

Why didn't it work out Hardware? Just because 3dfx required 4 chips to beat a GF2 Ultra DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S A BAD THING!!! Personally I couldn't give a crap whether nVidia cards needed a nuclear generator to beat a 3dfx chip, if it didn't meltdown and wipe my hole of a country town off the map, then it really doesn't matter.

This is almost resembling a dog chasing it's tail, lets let it die...

 

[DeathroweR]

I read somewhere a long time ago that 3dfx was planning to jump from .25 to .13 directly, skipping the .18 and .15 steps.

 

[Hardware]

As I know 3dfx get chips from TMSC!
TMSC is now ready for 0.15 but nvidia has secured most of the production so i assume 3dfx has to use 0.18 or even 0.25

 

[DaveB3D]

I didn't say it did run at 2x, I said I wouldn't be surprised if it did.


And as for running .15u. Why the hell would anyone want .15? The yields are going to suck and the cost is going to be high. The only reason NVIDIA is, is b\ecause they don't have a choice.

 

[Hardware]

<< And as for running .15u. Why the hell would anyone want .15? The yields are going to suck and the cost is going to be high. The only reason NVIDIA is, is b\ecause they don't have a choice. >>


I heared the same when 3dfx used 0.25 and nvida went to 0.22(0.18)
Wo now today what was the right decision!!!

 

[LevcoS]

Hmmm... Hardware is German? I can think of another hardware-oriented German (one who's a bit higher-profile) whose opinions tend to run deeply and tend to be antithetical to logic... Anybody suspect we've got a visitor from &quot;that other hardware site&quot; testing out bad ideas on this captive audience?

LevcoS

 

[ElFenix]

just because .22 and .18 worked for nVidia doesn't mean that .15 automatically will, the results are independent. so that doesn't make going to .15 the &quot;right&quot; decision. again, you're ignoring tradeoffs. nvidia has to make the part smaller to get more chips out of the wafer, to decrease power consumption, and to run at another incrementally higher clockspeed (i'm guessing graphics chips aren't designed to scale the way the latest microprocessors are). the problem with going to .15 is that no one has tested it out for anyone yet. at least with .18 intel was already doing it with the cumine. there is no one manufacturing at .15 right now. so yields will be poor initially. hell, TSMC said in another post of yours that you completely misconstrued that they are only able to make simple devices right now. in fact, that was the same post that said it was EXPECTED that nVidia use .15, not that nVidia took most of it (i would expect via to be pissed if that happened). nVidia estimates what TSMC is able to do, and from that information .15 is the right choice for them. of course those ESTIMATES may be wrong. do you really think 3dfx planned for all the problems with the VSA-100? do you think nVidia can somehow magically get information that is far better?

 

[BigToque]

hardware, you really are dumb.



<< Just a small sidefact:
dave told us the v6000 pulls out 1600x1200x32 fsaax2 65fps! >>



V6000: 1600x1200x32 2xFSAA = 65.1 FPS

GF2U: 1600x1200x32 NO FSAA = 58 FPS

GeForce2 Ultra - 1600x1200x32 = 58 FPS

Whats that you say? It doesnt matter what you say cause your a fscking idiot.



<< right now 3dfx need 4 chips to compete (in parts!) with a single nvidia chip
this is a fact! >>



That is not a fact. with 4 chips, the V6000 destroys the GF2U in performance. Not only does the V6000 whip the GeForce2 Ultra around, it even beats it with FSAA on!. Put the GF2U with 2x FSAA, and you end up with something like 25-30 FPS!

 

[Hardware]

LOL stefan

 

[BigToque]

<< LOL stefan >>



Sorry, I forgot that the V6000 sucks ass and the GF2U is awesome cause the GF2U is .18um.

 

[DaveB3D]

.15u is much more unproven then .22 or .18 was.. As I've said before, Intel and AMD aren't even using .15 us because of it being unproven and not perfected...

 

[Hardware]

TMSC told us 0.15 is ready for production
Liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink
In the past they were reliable

 

[DaveB3D]

Ready for production doesn't mean jack. It is still far from perfected. It usually takes a while for it to be perfect. The thing is, NVIDIA has no choice. That is what it comes down to. Running between 50-60+ million transistors they have to use it.

 

[ElFenix]

you've already posted that story. i don't know how good babelfish's translation is, but if it is correct, &quot;So far the process was economical by the bad yield only for simpler and small chips,&quot; means that they can only make simple devices right now. thanks for posting the link that proves what i was saying.

 

[PCResources]

Here we all are comparing a video card which isn't even out yet to one that has been around for quite a while...

How about comparing the NV60 to the V5500??

May i suggest that we compare the future products to the future products when they are all out, not the future products that may not even be manufactured to the ones that are a few monts old?

The only thing 3Dfx had going for them was glide, now glide is dead... I have said this so many times before, not to bash anyone, but because it's what i honestly believe.

Patrick Palm

Am speaking for PC Resources

 

[BigToque]

PCResources,

Why do you figure Glide is dead? There are many new games that use Glide, and there are many developers that will continue to use Glide as their API of choice.

 

[DaveB3D]

If you really think the only thing the V5 has going for it is Glide, you're really mistaken. You're missing out on a lot too by thinking that.