>What ever happened? 3dfx stagnated and fell behind due to bad management decisions. They seemed stuck on designing 3d accelerators like it was still 1996, whi

>What ever happened? 3dfx stagnated and fell behind due to bad management decisions. They seemed stuck on designing 3d accelerators like it was still 1996, which were just drawing triangles and doing texture mapping, while banking on higher clocks and adding multiple chips on board and even multiple cards in SLI to boost performance, while having the CPU take care of the rest in SW. But it was 1999 already and Nvidia moved to graphics processing units (GPUs) which could also offload the CPU and do transform, lighting, triangle setup/clipping, MPEG2 motion compensation and a multi-pipeline rendering engine for more polygon thruput at same clocks, along with being fully DX7 compliant, all in a single chip. The market decided that Nvidia's new direction is the future and not what 3dfx was doing. 3df tried to change course and catch up but it was too late, the GPU race was too cutthroat in those days. Nvidia was launching a new GPU generation every 6 months(!) instead of every 3 years like today, so a 6-12 month setback was a guaranteed death sentence no matter what you did. Also, one of 3dfx biggest blunders was trying to become a board maker themselves by spending a lot of cash buying a board manufacturer, which emptied their bank accounts and angered their other board partners who now saw them as unfair competitors so they moved to making ATI/Nvidia boards instead. >It shows that the most important move is to simply stay in the game, not just maximize profits How do you stay in the game if you go bankrupt because your products aren't competitive?