<Note From Spode>
When Bill came to me with this article, I found myself in a very uncomfortable
position. Posting information of this nature can be seen as flaming of other
companies unjustly. Having never met Bill, I also have no way of knowing if
this information is reliable, as far as I know It may be some of Tridents competition
stirring under an assumed name to get more sales on their part. Whatever the
situation, hopfeuly something good will come out of it without comprimising
our position as an unbiased review site. This article is meant to be soley informative
for potential buyers and to get some answers! I would like to add that this
article is the express opinion and research of Bill and not that of Spode's
Tom's Hardware give us a brief explanation of why they can get away with such
a low transistor count..
If you have any comments on this article, I highly suggest that you
take it to the Spode's
</Note From Spode>
Here is absolute proof that Trident was totally lying when they launched the
XP4 mobile graphics chip. They told everyone that with just 30 million transistors,
they could produce a DX8.1 chip that outperformed the ATI Mobility Radeon 9000.
Well it turns out that when you rename 3DMark2001 to something else, like for
instance ‘Tridentareabunchofcheaters.exe’, the scores drop in half.
I ran the scores on a Toshiba Tecra M1, using the Trident XP4 and a Pentium-M
1.6 GHz with 512MB RAM and Windows XP. I ran it head to head against my Dad’s
Dell Latitude D600 with a 32MB, 64-bit (most are 128-bit) Mobility Radeon 9000,
PentiumM 1.6GHz and 512MB RAM and WinXP.
See the graph above. The blue column shows ATI, the second shows the XP4 before
you rename 3DMark2001 and the second column shows what happens when you rename
3DMark2001 ‘Tridentareabunchofcheaters.exe’, the scores fall in
Here are the before and after screen shots of the 3DMark2001
score screen (above).
Here are before and after screen shots from the benchmark itself (showing the
<< Back | 1 | | 2 | Next >>