Talk:ArtX
Latest comment: 9 years ago by 83.240.117.207 in topic What exactly made ArtX worth aquiring?
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ArtX article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "ArtX" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comment
editFocused on delivering a PC graphics chip that was both high performance and cost effective, they hoped to be able to instantly compete with the giants in the industry at that time [within context: 1997], 3DFX and nVidia.
As I remember the time around 1997, nVidia was way far from what can be considered a giant. As the NVIDIA article also states:
[NVIDIA] remained relatively low-key until the late 1997-1998 period, when it launched its line of RIVA PC graphics processors.
What exactly made ArtX worth aquiring?
editI wonder what technologies ArtX had that made them worth buying. Or did ATI buy them purely to get the Nintendo Gamecube contract? --24.249.108.133 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- They mainly bought a competent team used to work on the bleeding edge. Which then went on to make their key future IP in R300 ... and beyond.83.240.117.207 (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)