Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trident XP4 Reviewed

Posted by michael on from the only-mostly-dead dept.

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.

5 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Horrible Review by Marx_Mrvelous · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They only test one resolution, 1600*1200! Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a lot of laptops with 1600* resolution. The whole review is only meant to make the card look bad, it doesn't take into consideration price, power/heat consumption, or other important factors. It is biased, shallow and not worthy of a /.ing!

    --

    Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
    1. Re:Horrible Review by be-fan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A lot of laptops have 1600x1200 resolution. But what do laptops have to do with anything? These are desktop chips. And they do take into account price: they mention that even if these are significantly cheaper than the Radeon 9000 Pro, they suck so bad it still wouldn't be worth it. A Radeon 9000 Pro runs $80 these days. This thing would have to sell around $30 for it to be any good, and projected retail prices are a whole lot higher than that ($100). As for power consumption, who cares? AGP only provides 25 watts of power, and none of the tested cards used an extra power connector. Even if the Radeon 9000 used the full power, and this card use 1/5 the power, the difference of 20 watts is worth jack shit.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  2. How about a more realistic review... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would be interesting to see a review of the card at normal resolution (the target market for the Trident probably can't even do 1600x1200 on their monitor, 1024x768 is a more reasonable resolution), and comparing it to a typical two year old card.

    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.

  3. Re:Meanwhile, back in Denmark... by InfernoBlade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dated August 2002. And the word Preview, right in the title bar.

    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.

  4. You're assuming the market. by InThane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remember, this part is probably OEM targeted, not enthusiast marketed. Most users will say, "Gee, that thingamabob's got 2.4 gigahertz of RAM, wow it's fast!" and buy it, not realizing they got shafted on the video.

    Carry out this philosophy across the machine, and you can shave $100-200 off the price of the machine, at least.

    --
    InThane