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 edit
Focused 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.
--Abdull 10:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What exactly made ArtX worth aquiring? edit
I 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)