Trident XP4 Reviewed 157
ceebABC writes "In a new review, the Trident XP4 got a nasty reception. Based on the tests, it sounds like Trident has got some work to do on the thing. Looks like this GPU is dead on arrival." Our last story on Trident mentioned them coming back from the dead. Maybe not.
Lying With Statistics (Score:2, Insightful)
It's pretty common, really. But I haven't usually seen it to this degree.
was it fair? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be a more fair comparison if they benchmarked against cards of the same price range? If you were shopping for a cheap card, you obviously wouldn't expect it to perform as well as a more expensive card anyway, would you? What do others think?
Yes it was fair (Score:1)
The Trident card just sucked.... Trident talked some nice trash before release, just like Matrox with the Parhelia.
Re:Yes it was fair (Score:2)
None the less:
You're comparing a MSRP of below $100 vs a "super special online lowest price ever street deal" of $100 for a $150 desktop GPU.
I can't find a *Retail* (vs OEM) price for the 9000 128 MB part below $150 USD here in Toronto.
AFAIAK the reviewer clearly pulled a dumbass move by running a grossly unfair comparison (the worst possible - 1600x1200x32bit-fsaa against a 9500 and a 4200 - how stupid is he), and of course is now being highly defensive.
Isn't the XP4 a *mobile* cpu? Does it use active cooling? Or passive? What about the Raedon 9000? So does that make them a good pair to compare?
I'd like to see what the retail storefront price and the bulk-OEM prices are of a MOBILE version of the 9000 vs the XP4 and the performance comparison at 1024x768x16bit once they've released their FCS tile drivers for the XP4.
Re:was it fair? (Score:1)
No it wasn't fair! (Score:1)
They should have compared it to comparable priced cards which now would be a Radeon 7000-8000 series!
That test was a crock!
If you look at the Radeon 9000 Pro, it's at $149.00 at CompUSA ATM but that's not even a fair comparison! It started out new at $400 and has dropped in price. The Trident is starting at $100 and will probably drop into the 30s.
No card is worth it's introduction pricing and once it hits the below $50, I'd say it was a great deal!
Re:No it wasn't fair! (Score:1)
The 9000 and 9700 were released around the same time.
At release, the 9000 was priced to compete with the 8500.
Perhaps you are confused about the difference between the $80 9000 Pro and the $350 9700 Pro?
Re:No it wasn't fair! (Score:2)
Re:Lying With Statistics (Score:2)
It's pretty common, really. But I haven't usually seen it to this degree.
This has nothing to do with lying about specs. The problem with these damn things was the GPU was dead, not under performing, it was dead on arrival. Now, I wonder why this happened? Two possible reasons, quality control failure, or unlikely random failure due to damage after manufacture? I think I'll prefer to believe that it was indeed a quality control failure. These cards should be tested before leaving the factory floor, otherwise bad things like this will happen to you and screw you big time. Quality assurance is a quick and easy thing to do, without increasing costs too much, and I know that I would rather pay a little more to be assured that I'm getting something that works, without me having to send it back to get a replacement for it.
The lesson? Check your work carefully if you don't want to look like an ass... See
Re:Lying With Statistics (Score:2)
Re:Lying With Statistics (Score:1)
Re:Lying With Statistics (Score:1)
Re:Lying With Statistics (Score:4, Funny)
but then again, drivers can be tweaked to skew benchmarks. Trust review sites...
but then again, all the review sites are bought and paid for by various vendors with special interests. Trust your parents.
Oh god... my dad is John Ashcroft... NEVERMIND...
Re:Lying With Statistics (Score:1)
Oh wait, wrong Trident.
Formating for speed readers? (Score:5, Funny)
has really
great formating.
I just love
to read in
one thin
column. Or
maybe they just
have funky
formating for
IE?
Re:Formating for speed readers? (Score:2)
maybe they just
have funky
formating for
IE?
What makes you think that anyone on SlashDot cares about this?
I'm sure it's better... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm sure it's better... (Score:1, Informative)
Maybe that annoyed spammer's getting his revenge on
Is it possible? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is it possible? (Score:2, Interesting)
This used to be the case in the past, but they are much better now. Not Nvidia quality, not yet, but they are getting there.
I'd love it if they'd release an open source linux driver though, that'd be cool!
Meanwhile, back in Denmark... (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes me wonder why an AnandTech article [anandtech.com] gave such a different opinion. Which one is right?
From page two...
Re:Meanwhile, back in Denmark... (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile, back in Denmark... (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted 1600x1200 wasnt fair either, but this isnt a notebook chip, its a desktop chip (unlike what other poster said). And its intended to compete with the likes of the GF4 and Radeon cards.
Re:Meanwhile, back in Denmark... (Score:1)
Some months back, Trident made much ado about its new DX9-class GPU that would take the mobile computing world by storm.
If this isnt the case than thats just another strike against the article.
Re:Meanwhile, back in Denmark... (Score:1)
Take a look at the testing environment page.
They're both right (Score:4, Insightful)
The extremetech.com review is pretty unfair, it's like testing a new Ferrari by seeing how much cargo it can carry and then declaring it a bad car because it doesn't haul as much as a Ford Explorer. This card is aimed at lower resolution (lower fill rate) applications that require low power and cost. Having a DX9 entrant into this arena to me is welcome.
We'll just have to wait for a real review to see if this card is any good.
-Ryan C.
Re:Meanwhile, back in Denmark... (Score:1, Informative)
Add to this some comments from AnandTechs preview:
Take it with a grain of salt.
Hardocp (Score:1)
Horrible Review (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Horrible Review (Score:4, Interesting)
You're assuming the market. (Score:4, Interesting)
Carry out this philosophy across the machine, and you can shave $100-200 off the price of the machine, at least.
Re:Horrible Review (Score:3, Interesting)
B) I agree the whole review stays away from the whole "calm objectivity" range of emotions. Face it, the reviewer was pretty upset about the poor showing, having expected better
C) The article does take price into consideration:
Re:Horrible Review (Score:1)
Re:Horrible Review (Score:1)
Dell seems to be the best for Hi res screens...others may do them, but only on the extreme high end desktop replacement models, and even then they screw you in the video department...
Re:Horrible Review (Score:1)
A friend owns a Dell Optiplex with a P4 2.53GHz and integrated i830 graphics - it runs UT2K3 so badly it's unplayable at everything higher than 640x480x16xreally-low-detail, so it'll be even worse on a laptop. Thankfully, I don't have that problem - admittedly I own the top-of-the-line model, but still...
Re:Horrible Review (Score:2, Informative)
Even assuming that the Trident's performance falls off disproportionately at high resolutions (so instead of 1/4 the speed of a GF4 Ti4200, it's maybe 1/3 the speed), it's still pretty pitiful. Nvidia's budget chip, the MX440, totally spanks it. It might be closer if you test the DX9 features that the Trident supposedly supports in hardware, but that's wait and see.
Re:Horrible Review (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Horrible Review (Score:1)
Slightly off-topic point of clarification: ExtremeTech is run (and owned) by Ziff Davis Media, not ZDNet.
Back in the day, Ziff and ZDNet were part of one company, but they were split apart a few years ago, and ZDNet was ultimately acquired by CNET. (I worked at Ziff, then spun out with ZDNet, rolled into CNET and came back to Ziff, so I've seen the whole process unfold from a number of angles.)
Matthew Rothenberg
Online editor
Ziff Davis Media
How about a more realistic review... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it does hardware T&L and doesn't cost much, it would be a nice replacement for the ATI Rage 128 Pro that I have.
Re:How about a more realistic review... (Score:3, Informative)
dead in the water? (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless, Trident's biggest customer has always been OEM's, so if they can deliver a cheap, decent card, they'll easily hit their target market.
Re:dead in the water? (Score:1)
ATI's been getting quite a few of them back though with the 9000s being cheaper than a GF4MX and performing much better in comparison. But Trident doesnt have a market anymore. They had a laptop one up til the mobile GF4s and Radeons, but they dont even have that anymore.
Not only that (Score:2)
So, people buying the cheapest motherboards on earth are benefiting. And that includes many of my friends or people I know.
Yes, they can try to buy a separate ATI card, or go for a better motherboard with more decent card, but at least you have a basic right there in your cheapo initial buy. If you never make it to buy the radeon 9500, then at least you have something (that is in fact faster than ANY card of two years ago).
I mean, people that buy latest-greatest are paying $300 for the privilege of running the cards the rest of the world have two years ahead (Not saying it's not worth, but time is the key here, not crap/cool). At some point I payed extra to have it BEFORE (couldn't wait, Voodoo could really do things no other could do) but I do not feel so pressed now. So welcome back Trident!
Unfair... (Score:1)
They compared it against a G4 4200 and a R9500. Shouldn't they have looked at a R7500 or mobile G 420/440 to be in the same price ballpark (~$100)?
incorrect comparison? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:incorrect comparison? (Score:1)
If my laptop had my Geforce Ti 4200 inside it, it would not only be a furnace -- it would put an early demise to my chances of having children!! ;-)
Re:incorrect comparison? (Score:2)
Re:incorrect comparison? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:incorrect comparison? (Score:1)
Laughing to the bank with that there? Or how about this: GF4 Ti4200 64 MB for $127 [newegg.com]
Laughing all the way into Bankruptcy is more like it.
*Note: I dont work for newegg, I just buy everything there
Exactly -- it's a budget chipset (Score:2)
There was no point comparing a card targetted at the sub-100 market against boards in the $400-500 market.
Budget cards sell to budget markets, which means a 17" monitor that will do 1280x1024x75Hz with some degree of acceptability. Testing performance at 1600x1200 was pointless for this market.
This chipset is designed for a market where the whole system (less monitor) is selling for prices comparable to top of the line NVidia and ATI cards. It's not intended to compete with those cards, but to provide a tolerable experience on a cheap system.
Correction (Score:2)
The boards being compared are in the roughly $100 market. Unless the Trident chipset hits the sub $50 integrator market, they're DOA.
Color me surprised. (Score:1)
Hrm this thing sounds DOA (Score:1)
Less for more... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Less for more... (Score:1)
You brought a crap Trident PCI video card for a crap price, then have the balls to complain that modern video cards are all crap. And with no explaination or proof of your conclusion. LOL
Despite the fact that:
1) The 2d acceleration on modern AGP cards is vastly better than and old Trident provided.
2) The 3d acceleration on even really cheap Nvidia cards is enough to power any game.
3) You even get TV out for free on cheap GF4 MX.
You can even get a GF4 MX440 for about $50, which barely costs more than your old PCI card.
Since I have fallen for a troll, I'll shut up now!
Ouchie! (Score:2)
Ouchie! Man, I wonder if Trident will EVER let these guys review ANYTHING again!
I hope, for the sake of the engineers at Trident, that there was some major D'OH! in the code, and that this isn't where their product really falls.
Geez, take a hint... (Score:3, Funny)
... from the lack of posts. Don't you know we're oly interested in Microsoft's failed projects [microsoft.com]?
P.S.: Anyone else experiencing extreme sluggishness about /. today? Earlier, I've had articles loading in background tabs for more than a minute. o_o
P.S. Update (10 mins later)!: Ouch. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea, noting the above comment, to intoduce another step and try previewing before submitting. -_-
Re:Geez, take a hint... (Score:2)
--
Mike
Re:Geez, take a hint... (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)
I have a spare 2mb Trident in my P-75 that may compete with the XP4...
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
The Trident '3DImage' hasn't had Direct3D drivers since Windows 95.
So I've got a "3D" card that's limited to DirectDraw. Not that I'd want to ( it runs DX5 games at about 10fps ). Obviously, a 3D core this slow was not worth perpetuation.
But I will say one thing for Trident: although their older ISA cards were sluggish, I've found their later cards ( 3DImage and Blade3D ) to have clear and responsive 2D. So maybe they can eventually figure this whole 3D Accelerator thing out...
More of an error on the part of Trident marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
For a laptop, the 3D benchmark scores are actually quite decent.
But for them to call it a desktop GPU is just asking for trouble, as the article clearly describes.
Losing sight of the target (Score:5, Insightful)
Then he proceeds to run this card at 1600x1200 with beta drivers against cards with excellent debugged drivers. Any sort of numerical or empirical evidence he could get at this point is about .05% useful to me.
Sure the thing may only get 4.9 FPS on a new demanding game at 1600x1200 with beta drivers. I bet you that same card will belt out over 60fps at 1024x768 when the real drivers are released.
People seem to forget that a video card driver's quality can be the difference between horrible performance and class leading performance. If the driver is not debugged and performance optimzed, there is nothing a hardware designer could do to make that card perform well.
I say that this is an excellent card that will allow users who do not want to spend $500 on a video card to play the latest and greatest games on the market. It is a Dx9 card, with full support. To me, this is an excellent card.
I bet they sell a whole boatload of these things to OEM manufacturers and those who do not really want to spend an entire car payment on moving some pixels around. -TinyManCan
Re:Losing sight of the target (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Losing sight of the target (Score:4, Informative)
Making a quick visit to the pricewatch would show you that Radeon 9000 Pro, which is one of the cards XP4 was being compared to, can be found for $81.
That's exactly the price target XP4 is going for, and it is performing less than 50% below R9000 Pro.
The review even talks about the driver issue, and how fully optimized drivers give another 20-30% performance improvement, which still won't be enough to reach the level of the competition.
Re:Losing sight of the target (Score:2)
To execute 9.0 pixel shaders, the R9000 would have to render everything in software. Likewise, to execute 9.0 vertex shaders coupled with 8.1 pixel shaders, the R9000 would still have to calculate the vertex shaders in software. This is slow, and not always supported. (Some games don't work with software vertex shaders.) So this isn't a good comparison at all.
Re:Losing sight of the target (Score:1)
Debugged drivers or not, Trident claimed that the GPU had 80% of the performance of the Geforce 4 Ti 4600. With those claims, it should perform better than the ~5 FPS even at the high resolutions despite the drivers.
I bet you that same card will belt out over 60fps at 1024x768 when the real drivers are released.
I'll prolly belt out over 60 FPS in a heated game of Solitaire.
Trident Releases PR Statement (Score:2, Funny)
PR: It has come to our attention that many of our customers and critics are not satisfied with the review of our product as we previously shipped to them and received with deafed [engrish.com] ears. The staff of www.extremetech.com have mis-interpreted Trident's XP4 product and have mis-applied our technology. In our initial PR Announcment of the XP4, we were received by listeners that our product will whipe-out the competition. Despite our best efforts to contact the staff of www.extremetech.com before they released the results, we have received much criticism and have now been given opportunity to make clear our statements. Our initial PR statment confirms that our product was not intended to whipe-out the competition; we meant that the XP4 will whipe the ass of our competitors. We understand the definite language barrier of our PR staff and the general international public. Over the past 6 months, Trident has become one of the greatest suppliers of industrial sand paper and the most abrasive toilette paper in the history of indoor plumbing of developed nations. The Trident XP4 is intended to provide the most dis-comfort in our competitors as its only use is to whipe their ass in the most abrasive fassion possible. We thankyou for your concern and please feel free to purchase more of Trident's innovative products.
I thought this information should be re-layed to the slashdot community as it clears-up much of the incorrectly perceived statements. You know what happens with the SNAFU theorom these days...
Sincerily,
Bob Grover
Re:Trident Releases PR Statement (Score:1)
Re:Trident Releases PR Statement (Score:1)
Our initial PR statment confirms that our product was not intended to whipe-out the competition; we meant that the XP4 will whipe the ass of our competitors. We understand the definite language barrier of our PR staff and the general international public. Over the past 6 months, Trident has become one of the greatest suppliers of industrial sand paper and the most abrasive toilette paper in the history of indoor plumbing of developed nations. The Trident XP4 is intended to provide the most dis-comfort in our competitors as its only use is to whipe their ass in the most abrasive fassion possible.
So what you're saying is your product will be covered in the blood and shit of your competitors? NO THANKS!
Also if your competitors are wiping their asses with your product, whether or not it's uncomfortable, they are still using your product to wipe their asses with...which is still bad!
PS I think your PR personel are suppose to be good at the whole general public/language barrier kinda thing. It may be a good time to get some new people in there...
DX9 class? (Score:3, Interesting)
And I would have really liked to have seen them run the tests at 1024x768 anyway despite the lack of AA in the drivers.
Looks pretty bad. (Score:1)
I need a 2ghz computer to run Word.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dumb down the tests and give it to joe-six pack (you know, the ones who WON'T spend the extra 300 bucks for 30 trillion pixal shading?) and see what they think.
Does it run the app fine? Does the game run smooth in a comfortable screensize?
Being broke lately, I've come to appreciate that UT2003, or Dungeon Seige runs just fine on my celeron 533 with 512 meg ram, and while a more powerful graphics card would make it run even better, my 2 year old Gforce2 works just fine.
Just fine for the Cheapo price I would pay for the same card nowadays.
Extremetech turned me off of readership in the past by their lack of credible articles, and this just reinforces why I stopped reading it.
Personal opinion should be available at the END of an article, not the beginning opening bias.
Well my Word document just decided to unfreeze and let me save, so I will end this rant.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Re:I need a 2ghz computer to run Word.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder how it stacks up against the S4 Savage, NoForce, mobile Radeon or intels Xtreme grafx.
I mean "GPU designed for laptop not as cool as desktop gaming cards!" is kind of a no-shit conclusion.
Just summing up what I've read so far... (Score:5, Informative)
In one review, we have extremetech maxing up the resolutions and detail levels of some heavy hitting games, in addition to a 3dmark benchmark, against two of the biggest cards out there. These cards are at least twice the MSRP of this card. Extremetech then complains that the inexpensive card with beta drivers doesn't tread water against the established champs.
In a different review, anandtech set the resolution to something normal (how many gamers out there actually run the game at 1600x1200?) and they show the card as giving fluid performance, even beating the Radeon 9000 in one map. Albeit still behind the other two cards reviewed on some tests, they do mention that the drivers are beta and that finalized they will probably make the card perform much better.
I've been noticing that extremetech's reviews seem really, well, extreme. At least from my perception they will give good reviews to what can keep pace with the top cards or exceed the top card - and at times seems to focus on the war between NVidia and ATI for the title of Supreme cardmaker.
But how long ago was it that both of these companies were in Trident's situation? How long ago was it that these companies were struggling against 3dfx?
Like many before me ahve said, wait and see. This card could turn out to be the best card price for performance wise. It could come out and have the mobile version do everything else in. It could come out and be complete crap against whatever new cards the twin titans come out with.
Re:Just summing up what I've read so far... (Score:1)
if you don't mind, i would like to add more to what you said.
How many people in the market for a sub 100$ card are going to be running at 1600x1200 in the first place?
How many people in the market for a sub 100$ card are going to have PIV 3.06 gHz cpus?
This card is meant primarily for budget computers. Yes, it will probably list for 99$ but on the day they are released, I bet they will be going for ~70$ on pricewatch. Sure, a Geforce 4 Ti4200 is ~120$ and the ATI 9000 is ~100$, but for a person running a Duron 1.2 gHz, spending an extra 50$ on a chip for a 15" or 17" monitor that can only max out on 1280x1024 is a waste of money.
This was a HORRIBLE review by extremetech. I mean, what were they thinking? "Let's review a sub 100$ video card with video cards that cost ~300$ when they first came out"? "Hey! let's review this BUDGET card at 1600x1200 with BETA drivers!"
On a side note, I wonder how much power this chipset will use up? The notebook version may wipe the floor with the big two in the notebook arena with decent performance and great power consumption.
invidia demos (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is, you won't even be able to see anything like that in a game anyways because there are more objects showing on the screen in a game. Heck, I bet a card that's 2 year older can pull something off like those demos with good graphics coding.
I just wish they would show something more practical.
Re:invidia demos (Score:1)
no surprise (Score:1, Funny)
Re:no surprise (Score:2)
Trident has always been crap! (Score:1)
Now is the perfect opportunity for Trident to re-invent itself! Or, more likely, now is the time for Trident to come up with another crappy video card.
Re:Trident has always been crap! (Score:1)
"Scotty, we need to scroll more than 1 screen per second"
"Captain, I'm giving her all she's got. Any more and she'll start to get warm!"
"Sulu, set the phasers to freeze!"
Re:Trident has always been crap! (Score:1)
Kirk: Spock, I don't give a damn about dot pitch. I need 1024x768!
Hmmmmm.... (Score:2)
I say this because it seems odd that a card running at a reasonable clock speed with reasonably fast ram should run so slowly on fill-rate tests.
well (Score:1)
Isn't this the Parhelia all over again? (Score:1)
The Essence Of Competition (Score:2, Insightful)
This card was not MEANT for the cutting edge gamer (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, if I build a gaming rig, this isn't the card I'm going to use. I'm going to spend the cash for a high end card, and probably brag about my insane frame rates the next time I take it to a LAN party.
On the other hand, if I built a PC for someone who isn't planning on playing Doom 3 extensively, I might actually consider a card of this calibur. It is a DX 9 card for under $100. This is probably a decent choice for a bargain PC.
If this is a laptop GPU (Score:2, Insightful)
Tridents suck... period (Score:1)
Folks, we're talking DX9 here! (Score:1)
Review shows extremetech's ignorance of XP4 (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the XP4 deviates from the long-established, direct-mode rendering (which is a brute force method) for tile-based rendering, they are going to need a lot of time to get their drivers in order before they will be able to compete properly with the familiar video cards. The only other card mainstream card that attempted this rendering approach was the Kyro series, which demonstrated that tile-based rendering does have huge potential and that drivers will make or break the card's performance.
Interesting enough, because video cards using the tile-based rendering method are more efficient by 200-300%* when compared to cards using the traditional method, they should see a much lower performance decrease as the screen resolution is increased when compared against direct-mode renderers (e.g. NVidia NV9 cards and ATI Radeon 9500s). While it's true that fill rates do increase substantially with increased resolution, direct-mode renderers simply will experience that much more overfill.
*Direct-mode renderers have an overfill rate of about 2 or 3; this means that for every pixel visible two or three more have been rendered and then disgarded. Tile-based renderers, on the other hand, disgard everything that won't be visible first and only render what's left, giving them an overfill of 0. Figuring out what to cull first before rendering has begun is more complicated than culling excess pixels after they are rendered; this complexity is what makes writing the drivers for a tile-based renderer such a difficult task.
Trident has set for themselves an incredibly difficult challenge: 1) Make a card that uses a tile-based rendering method, which means throwing out nearly everything the graphics card industry has learned the past couple decades. 2) In addition to the first task, they have added the complexity of sharing graphical resources, thus adding all the timing problems associated with such a configuration. If they achieve only 50% of the performance of Nvidia's Geforce4 TI4600, that alone would be a considerable achievement. If Trident meets the 80% performance target they set for themselves, it will be all the more impressive.
mainstream... (Score:3, Insightful)
Trident king of gfx? right... (Score:1)
Last Post! (Score:1)
Manual which is part of the UDA50 Programmers Doc Kit manuals:
As stated above, the host area of a disk is structured as a vector of
logical blocks. From a performance viewpoint, however, it is more
appropriate to view the host area as a four dimensional hyper-cube, the
four dimensions being cylinder, group, track, and sector.
. .
Referring to our hyper-cube analogy, the set of potentially accessible
blocks form a line parallel to the track axis. This line moves
parallel to the sector axis, wrapping around when it reaches the edge
of the hyper-cube.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...