View Full Version : Trident: "XP4 T3 will achieve 70% of Radeon 9700 perf&q
That's not all he said:Le: In summary, we think it is such a waste of money to buy NVIDIA and ATI products and I personally consider what they are doing as highway robbery of the 21st century and must be stopped immediately. We will set a new and FAIR price/performance standard and stay committed to bringing real values to all 3D graphics lovers.:D
The key quote, IMO:GD: How are you able to perform many of the functions your competition does on such a small chip (only 30 million transistors)?
Le: The secret is in the mathematics of multiple-pixel rendering. Our advanced 3D graphics algorithm is optimized for rendering multiple pixels in parallel by intelligent sharing of pixel rendering hardware at strategic stages in the graphics rendering pipelines.So, is this SIMD in GPUs, or just their "tile-based rasterization engine" in action? Is SIMD already implemented in GPUs?
http://www.gamersdepot.com/interviews/trident/xp4/001.htm
Talk amongst yourselves.
[Edit: Rrg, can't get an end " to work, it keeps turning into an &.]
I read that interview too, but didn't bother to post it here, because I thought everyone saw it already.
there is quite many agressive comments on that interview. Somewhere he talks about how nVidia and ATI will react and he thinks that nVidia or ATI will try to capture their company after the XP4 T3 launch via stock market! :o
so either they really have jewel on their hands or then their marketing department has gone totally nuts!
Yep, forgot to include the "poison pill" comment, possibly the most barbed reply in the whole bitter interview.
I thought people could at least get a laugh out of it. :)
Even if I didn´t lol I was quite amused when I read that interview a couple of days ago. My thought was more along the line: what if they actually deliver!?
Think about it, it coud really shake things, and I sure wouldn´t mind lower prices.
70% of a 9700 at under 100 bucks? Are you kidding me? I´d jump at it right away (provided the output is tolerable). For $90 I´d settle for 50% of a 9700 :wink:
rubank
Nagorak
12-Aug-2002, 09:15
I honestly hope they deliver!
Even if I didn´t lol I was quite amused when I read that interview a couple of days ago. My thought was more along the line: what if they actually deliver!?
Think about it, it coud really shake things, and I sure wouldn´t mind lower prices.
70% of a 9700 at under 100 bucks? Are you kidding me? I´d jump at it right away (provided the output is tolerable). For $90 I´d settle for 50% of a 9700 :wink:
rubank
I am definately with you. :)
would that mean time to start TURC? ;) :D
How would Ant like that? ;)
rubank, I'd certainly love it if Trident could deliver on their promises, but with 30 mil transistors? Well, we'll see.
Geeforcer
12-Aug-2002, 09:51
Our performance target for XP4 T3 is 70 percent of ATI's latest R300, and 80 percent of NVidia's GeForce4 Ti 4600.
I'd really like to know what these numbers are based on. Are these theoretical numbers like fillrate or polygon throughput, or are they based on a benchmark (then I'd like to know what application and settings they are using).
If XP4 is delivers 70% of R300 AND 80% of Ti4600 performance, that would mean that Ti4600 delivers 87.5% of R300 performance - unless either 4600 magically got much faster of R300 somehow got much slower in the last couple of weeks, this is simply not the case in any non-CPU limited 3D benchmark.
Nappe1,
if you start the TURC I want to be an honorary member :D
(but I guess you won´t have time for TURC, you´ll be busy with BURC :wink: )
rubank
Richthofen
12-Aug-2002, 10:07
probably he just states performance without FSAA and AF.
In that case it is not that difficult to reach the performance of a Ti4600 or R300 especially in CPU limited games.
But who cares about that?
FSAA and AF is already standard. If they do not deliver that with acceptable performance the reviewers will destroy their chip on the PR front. That's it.
Nappe1,
if you start the TURC I want to be an honorary member :D
(but I guess you won´t have time for TURC, you´ll be busy with BURC :wink: )
rubank
heheh :) hopefully there will be BURK someday... but right now founding it would be suicide. ;)
and Rubank, there is already a group of ppl joined together so, generally 'BURK' already exists (name is different though.), but because of obious reasons, we have stayed underground so far. (actually over a year now.) ;)
okay, enough of this offtopic. :)
Our performance target for XP4 T3 is 70 percent of ATI's latest R300, and 80 percent of NVidia's GeForce4 Ti 4600.
I'd really like to know what these numbers are based on. Are these theoretical numbers like fillrate or polygon throughput, or are they based on a benchmark (then I'd like to know what application and settings they are using).
If XP4 is delivers 70% of R300 AND 80% of Ti4600 performance, that would mean that Ti4600 delivers 87.5% of R300 performance - unless either 4600 magically got much faster of R300 somehow got much slower in the last couple of weeks, this is simply not the case in any non-CPU limited 3D benchmark.
my guess is that they are talking about 3DMark performance. in that case, default benchmark would give aproximately something between 0.80 * Ti4600 Score and 0.70 * Radeon 9700 Score (14000 would mean 9800.) with XP4 T3 on high end system.
wheeh... that's the way to speculate... :) how many 'ifs' you can find from above?? :D
Well, according to Anand it runs UT 2003 with respectable performance, that should account for something (- even if I don´t want to draw any deeper conclusions on that).
I guess we´ll just have to wait for the numbers.
Nagorak
12-Aug-2002, 11:26
FSAA and AF is already standard. If they do not deliver that with acceptable performance the reviewers will destroy their chip on the PR front. That's it.
In a value card? :o
Yeah right... That's the standard for the high end, no one is going to care whether an el-cheapo value card can run with FSAA and AF
demalion
12-Aug-2002, 11:41
On the one hand, I don't think they need to support FSAA, and their texture filtering just has to be tolerable (really, general consumers don't seem to understand terms like "anisotropic" and "trilinear" and won't generally notice the difference EDIT: well, not and recognize what is causing it) as opposed to what the Xabre previews indicated were default.
On the other, I do not for one minute buy the "fully supporting DX 9 in hardware" from that interview...it sounds like a miscommunication or subtle miswording, especially when they talk about the GF4 and DX 9 in a similar way...it just seems to be marketing speak for saying "you can use DX 9 on this hardware" (true for about any videocard with drivers still being made) not "you can fully expose the DX 9 featureset on this hardware".
But, for those prices, they don't have to.
I do think that even a hint that they can run UT 2003, and not run it poorly, is promising. Also, it is pretty obvious, as has been stated, that "80%" of "some other card" is a completely meaningless figure without stating the conditions...so the UT 2003 comment is the one that is most significant to me (though details are still needed).
Seems to me that the article was a sales pitch through and through, which seems to be establishing itself as a tradition, but as long as they deliver something reasonably close to a fair expectation from their claims, I think their mindshare grabbing attempts are tolerable for their situation for now.
Onslaught
12-Aug-2002, 13:52
About the DX9 thing...
According to Trident's home page the chips do contain DX9 hardware.
See this link: Trident's home page (http://www.tridentmicro.com/press/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=136&BigClassName=Trident&SmallClassName=release&SpecialID=0)
If they deliver only 50% of R300 with DX9 at this price level then I will be happy. He really need an installed base urgentlly.
For those too lazy to follow the link (thx onslaught), here's a snip:
Trident Microsystems, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRID), is unveiling its desktop XP4™ 3D graphics family setting a new price/performance standard for Microsoft's DX8.1/9.0-compliant graphics cards for less than $100, with 128MBytes of up to 700MHz DDR memory.
The DX8.1/9.0 statement is all over that page, I really want to know more details about this chip, about time for some in-depth tech p/reviews! Now what does compliance mean again, IIRC it does mean more than just "compatibility", you need to have features in hardware in order to be compliant, right? Aww my head hurts...
What I found entertaining is the fact that their PR department sure knows their stuff, fancy names for everything: BrightPixel™ rendering engine, SmartTile™ memory architecture and CoolPower™ for low power management... ;)
KnightBreed
12-Aug-2002, 15:37
Whoa, that interview reads like something given by Bubba back in the 3dfx days. :)
BoddoZerg
12-Aug-2002, 16:14
80% of Ti4600 and 70% of Radeon9700 performance probably is running (original) Unreal Tournament at 800*600. kekeke.
Chalnoth
12-Aug-2002, 16:57
In a value card? :o
Yeah right... That's the standard for the high end, no one is going to care whether an el-cheapo value card can run with FSAA and AF
But that's just it. Trident is apparently trying to make it sound like there's no reason to buy any high-end card, since theirs will be almost as good for a fraction of the cost.
If it doesn't support FSAA/aniso, and at good performance, it's just not worth it (particularly for me now that I have a GF4 Ti 4200...).
Johnny Rotten
12-Aug-2002, 17:07
The premise of the card sounds very exciting to me, not because its something I'm personally interested in (I'm not) but because it sounds like it would make an amazing baseline chip. Trident historically has had a strong foothold in the ultra cheap, ultra low end pc segment. And if this chip should quickly migrate to that segment it would do wonders....
... if marketing can be trusted. :wink:
If it doesn't support FSAA/aniso, and at good performance, it's just not worth it (particularly for me now that I have a GF4 Ti 4200...).
"We're" missing a vital point here.
Most consumer (I'd say 80-90%) would just stare at you with a retarded look upon their face if you mention FSAA or Aniso.
Most users (I'd say 60-70%) won't EVER go into their controlpanels or in game options for their videocard.
I mean many consumers won't even know what "resolution" or "colordepth" means. And there's still a whole lot of people who wouldn't know the difference between Software rendering or Open GL/Direct3D.
To put it short. If the card has the RAW performance equivelent to a "70% of a Radeon 9700" it will be THE bomb for MOST users.
Thus it will hurt nVidia and ATi where it counts, ie not cards aimed at geek enthusiast.
I mean if it really has 70% of the 9700's performance then Radeon 9000, Xabre 400 and especially GeForce 4 MX is in a hell of a lot of trouble.
And those are the cards that bring dinner to the table of the ATi and nVidia people.
Chalnoth
12-Aug-2002, 19:20
Making excuses for stupid users?
The way you describe it, a TNT2 M64 would be just fine for most people, and most games, even today. After the release of UT2K3, Unreal 2, and DOOM3, then that may be upgraded to a GeForce2 MX.
If somebody really cares about performance, then they should most certainly learn about FSAA and anisotropic filtering. Otherwise, just let them run at 640x480x16, on a stable video card.
That is, stability is the #1 thing for somebody who knows next to nothing about those advanced visual quality options. Right now, that means nVidia. It is very likely that Trident will not be able to put out a card that even competes with ATI in stability, compatibility, and reliability.
Randell
12-Aug-2002, 19:46
Making excuses for stupid users?
oh such a lofty perch one sits on.
borzwazie
12-Aug-2002, 19:46
The opinion that users who don't know what kind of card that their computer has are somehow "stupid" is kind of arrogant.
Most people don't care at _all_ what video card their computer has until a game they want to play won't run at all.
Case in point: a co-worker of mine has been playing MS Combat Flight Sim, which apparently is a fairly graphically intensive game. He bought a Dell something or other that came with a GF2mx, which is not really a powerhouse of a card anymore. He's been running the game at 640x480, and loving the game. He didn't even know you could change the resolution the game ran at. I would call him a typical computer user.
The people on this board, and people who debate graphic card technologies are most definately _not_ typical users. It would be very presumptuous of us to call anyone else a "stupid" user just because they don't spend all their energy tweaking their computer. For typical users, if it works, that's all they want to know.
OpenGL guy
12-Aug-2002, 19:57
The opinion that users who don't know what kind of card that their computer has are somehow "stupid" is kind of arrogant.
I agree, "stupid" is a poor choice of words. I think "ignorant" is more appropriate.
Randell
12-Aug-2002, 19:59
most 'average' PC gamers migrate from consoles. They have no conception of reso;ution diffences, filtering, texture settings, AA or driver conflicts. If it works fisrt time every time on a console, then why the hell doesn't it just work like that on my 5x more expensive PC.
And what is wrong with that attitude eh?
Chalnoth
12-Aug-2002, 20:07
No, I think stupid is about right.
This is the reason.
If somebody wants a high-performing card, they owe it to themselves to do the research. If they want a card that just works, Trident is almost certainly not for them (We'll know for certain a little bit after the card ships, I think). Doing anything less results in a stupid mistake. I know I've made a few, which is the main reason I frequent these boards. I don't want to make such a stupid mistake again.
"stupid" is a strong word and no consumer deserve such adjective.
Nobody has any obligation to know everything about the latest hardware.
IIRC 80% of all gamers (from valve survey) dont have a DDR card. http://valve.speakeasy.net/
These people will probably be pressured to upgrade to play U2/Doom3 engine based games. Offer than a value DX9 card and they will be more than happy :)
OEM will love it. I hope Trident have done a good job.
edited: english correction.
RiotSquad
12-Aug-2002, 20:10
The way you describe it, a TNT2 M64 would be just fine for most people, and most games, even today. After the release of UT2K3, Unreal 2, and DOOM3, then that may be upgraded to a GeForce2 MX.
It is more or less true...I have friends who 'til about half a year ago was quite happy with their P2 450 ATi Rage Pro...and that's quite far from a powerhouse...
As long as it runs the games they want to play most aren't asking for more...and they don't really care if the framerate drops to 10 now and then in Q3A...(I wish I was like it too,it'd save me quite a bit of cash on HW... :))
TheMightyPuck
12-Aug-2002, 20:32
these "stupid" people have what are referred to as "lives".
KnightBreed
12-Aug-2002, 20:50
IIRC 80% of all gamers (from valve survey) dont have a DDR card. http://valve.speakeasy.net/
Correction: 80% of all gamers that play Halife-Life and its mods don't have DDR-based video cards. It isn't an entirely accurate representation of all gamers. Many people still play that game simply because newer games don't run very well with their systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the real number was closer to 50-60% - which admittedly is still too high.
RussSchultz
12-Aug-2002, 20:50
Aaah, but stupid pathetic little lives without the latest gadgets to keep them warm at night!
IIRC 80% of all gamers (from valve survey) dont have a DDR card. http://valve.speakeasy.net/
Correction: 80% of all gamers that play Halife-Life and its mods don't have DDR-based video cards. It isn't an entirely accurate representation of all gamers. Many people still play that game simply because newer games don't run very well with their systems. I wouldn't be surprised if the real number was closer to 50-60% - which admittedly is still too high.Correction partially accepted because I seriouslly doubt it is as high as 50%. And half life derivatives still are the most played in the net isnt? I think many people play it simply because it is good :)
GameSpy:
Live Stats
Game Players Game Players
Half Life 95116
Medal of Honor Allied Assault 8136
Unreal Tournament 6439
Quake 3: Arena 5186
Return to Castle Wolfenstein 4588
Soldier of Fortune 2 3272
edited: I believe the half life sample is large and representative enough to take some conclusions with minor error.
demalion
12-Aug-2002, 21:23
1024x768x32 with no aniso and no AA with pixel and vertex shader support in hardware is by no means ugly, and not at all "stupid". :roll: Keep in mind what games a TNT2 class card plays "well enough", and keep in mind how much of an upgrade any shader supporting card is to a TNT2 or GF 2 MX. It seems obvious to me that there are QUITE a few users who would be happy with such a card, and it seems to me that they WOULD be getting a rather amazing upgrade (as long as the quality isn't at the Xabre shortcut level), and that this has nothing to do with their intelligence, just their desire to bypass the barriers of 1) general computer familiarity, 2) comfort level in actually changing anything besides wallpaper, or things of a similar nature of easy to understand naming and immediate feedback, 3) negative conditioning to changing driver settings at all in their most familiar computer environment, most likely a business or casual home use 4) the first clue on what the terms mean (though Catylyst makes it very easy and simple to adjust settings, and I assume other drivers do as well), 5) dissatisfaction with their game appearance such that they don't adjust the game settings, but go find the driver settings pages.
I don't know about you, but when I had a Rage in my laptop, it looked pretty good to me playing half-life. If modern games look like approximately like half-life, a user doesn't have to have some mental deficiency to be satisfied, so please stop stating such an arrogant term and stick to something more accurate that has been provided..."ignorant". Look at the barriers of entry...do you expect only non-stupid people to allocate the time to getting through all those, or is it just that non-stupid people are born with the knowledge or are guaranteed to have been exposed to it. There are things about operating a naval nuclear reactor that are easier than setting the spectrum of driver settings for my video card...just because I found it fun and interesting to learn about it and knew where to look to learn rather quickly doesn't mean anyone who finds it tedious or who doesn't have the time is any less capable or intelligent...and for "fast" 1024x768x32 with shader support (my benchmark for the card being the hardware release of the year :lol: ), why would most people bother to start trying?
Now what does compliance mean again, IIRC it does mean more than just "compatibility", you need to have features in hardware in order to be compliant, right? Aww my head hurts...
Complaince means nothing, it's marketing speak :(
I don't know which 'DX9' features the card contains, but it's definitely not PS2/VS2, so I sure wouldn't call it a DX9 card.
Disclaimer: This post is of course based on my guesses of the perfromance of XP4 T3.
Will XP4 T3 be a great bang for the buck? - Yes
Will XP4 T3 be a significant upgrade for a lot of "low end" gamers? - Yes
Will this do a good job of raising the lowest common denominator that games are written for, and thus give a benefit for "high end" gamers? - Yes
Is there "low end" gamers that wouldn't see more difference between R9700 and XP4 T3 than the 30% slowdown? - Yes
Does that make Tridents claims of 70% of R9700 speed valid? - No (*)
If Trident claims 70% of R9700 speed, and silently thinks "because we know most of our buyers are too ignorant to realize how many features they could enable for free on a R9700". Then that claim should and will be ripped into shreads by reviews. Note: that claim. The card as a whole will hopefully get good reviews as a good bang for the buck card.
(*) I assume here that the 70% claim doesn't refer to high quality/res/FSAA/AF situations. If it actually does, then I'll be duöy impressed.
XP4 is not DX9.0 Compliant in tht it has any features like the fp pipeline.
The interviewee was quite clever wording that anyone with DX9 INSTALLED would be able to use the XP4 - not that the XP4 was DX9 anything...
You can play UT2k3 on a Voodoo3 but it sure aint a DX8 card ..
And again.. 70% of the 3DMarks the R9700 is forcasted to get isn't the defnitive benchmark.. and if someone doesnt know what FSAA and AF is it doesnt mean they are STUPID.
:roll:
Complaince means nothing, it's marketing speak :(
I don't know which 'DX9' features the card contains, but it's definitely not PS2/VS2, so I sure wouldn't call it a DX9 card.
Definitely? Please point me to a source that makes such a certain statement plausible and I'll happily accept it, until then your "definitely" is actually just a paraphrased "I don't think so". Compliance can actually mean many things, and that's the problem of the term I think. That's why I posed my comment as a question, because I am a bit unsure about the "common" meaning of the word within the industry (I remember a vivid discussion about the meaning of the word "comprehensive" in a similar context only recently, these marketing people sure stip up a lot of discussions with their favourite c-words). ;)
Since I don't seem to remember DX7-class hardware like a GF4MX or R7500 ever claiming DX8 "compliance", I am simply curious as to how much substance is behind Trident's claim. Maybe they specifically wrote "DX8.1/9.0" to indicate their part is somewhere in between, who knows the minds of these people? I am not refering to the interview btw, AFAIK the PR representative in the interview never mentioned the word compliant or anything similar. I am refering to the Trident product website which specifically states DX8.1/9.0 compliance.
Also, Anand said XP4 has "a base level of DirectX 9 support" about the shaders, so I suspect it's Pixel- and Vertexshaders probably go beyond DX8.1 spec and might even meet minimal DX9.0 spec. It most likely misses features like the 128bit floating-point precision or displacement mapping though, among others. Anyway, its all speculation, more detailed reviews will answer the questions in the not-too-distant future...
OpenGL guy
12-Aug-2002, 23:31
Also, Anand said XP4 has "a base level of DirectX 9 support" about the shaders, so I suspect it's Pixel- and Vertexshaders probably go beyond DX8.1 spec and might even meet minimal DX9.0 spec.
I can't quote the DX9 specs by heart, but I am pretty sure that a floating point pixel pipeline was a part of PS 2.0. If Trident had such features, it seems like they would be shouting about it, not saying things like "compliant" which could be misunderstood.
The XP4 desktop product family is available in three versions:
- XP4 T3 supporting 128MBytes of up to 700MHz DDR memory with 128-bit bus;
- XP4 T2 supporting 64Mbytes of 500MHz DDR memory with 128-bit bus;
- XP4 T1 supporting 64Mbytes of 500MHz DDR memory with 64-bit bus.
The XP4 T3 tops the performance chart with a 300MHz graphics engine and enables PC OEMs plus card makers to deliver advanced DX8.1/9.0 graphics card with 128MBytes memory for less than $99 (suggested retail price) to the end-users. The 128-bit Double-Data-Rate (DDR) memory system reaches a bandwidth of up to 11.2 Gbytes/sec and the 3D graphics engine achieves a peak performance of 1.2 billion pixels/sec.
The XP4 T3 offers a maximum power dissipation of less than four watts. This corresponds to only a fraction of competing alternatives, improving chip reliability in typical consumer-oriented operating environments where overheating could be the cause of system failure.
The XP4 T2 provides mainstream DX8.1/9.0 performance with a 250MHz graphics engine and reduces the end-user price of 64Mbytes graphics card to less than $79 (suggested retail price). XP4 T2 memory bandwidth peaks at 8.0 Gbytes/sec and 3D graphics performance hits 1 billion pixels/sec, rivaling other high-end, competitive products.
The XP4 T1 brings entry-level DX8.1/9.0 graphics card to a rock-bottom price of less than $69 (suggested retail price) also with a 250MHz graphics engine but in a 64-bit memory bus for lowest cost. The XP4 T1 memory bandwidth reaches 4.0 Gbytes/sec.
http://www.tridentmicro.com/press/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=136&BigClassName=Trident&Small ClassName=release&SpecialID=0
I dont know how they can make such a claim. I will eat my hat if the XP4 is DX9.0. :o
I dont own a hat though ;)
Testiculus Giganticus
12-Aug-2002, 23:57
The lack of a fp pipeline means no DX9 compliance. Also, it is my opinion that they also cannot support DM, or VS2.0.Why? A value chip with a laughable transistor count, a chip that is built around the concept of logic sharing, will be hard pressed to squeeze in DX8 units, let alone the more complicated and transistor consuming DX9 ones. I think that the "DX8.1/DX9" quote is some more agressive marketing talk, that will blow like a bubble with review sites and experienced users, but will be a great opportunity for Trident to sell their chips to the rest of the world, EG to the people that fall for such marketing.
LittlePenny
12-Aug-2002, 23:58
My guess is DX 8.1 PS/ DX 9.0 VS.
Oh and what the heck is a kekeke?
The lack of a fp pipeline means no DX9 compliance. Also, it is my opinion that they also cannot support DM, or VS2.0.Why? A value chip with a laughable transistor count, a chip that is built around the concept of logic sharing, will be hard pressed to squeeze in DX8 units, let alone the more complicated and transistor consuming DX9 ones. I think that the "DX8.1/DX9" quote is some more agressive marketing talk, that will blow like a bubble with review sites and experienced users, but will be a great opportunity for Trident to sell their chips to the rest of the world, EG to the people that fall for such marketing.
I don't see why you couldn't create a fully DX9 compatible chip with just 30 million transitors. Afterall, you could implement the entire DX9 pipeline on a CPU that has just as many or less transitors than that. Of course it wouldn't be fast, but that is a different issue than actually supporting the features.
I'm not saying that it does (support DX9 features), just that you can't discredit it based solely on transistor count.
I hope they are able to deliver.
Crusher
13-Aug-2002, 00:05
Anyone who spends a minute looking into what Trident has managed to accomplish in the past few years will find themselves with 55 seconds left over, and a much better understanding of just how small the chances are that the XP4 will be worth a damn.
RussSchultz
13-Aug-2002, 00:06
Oh and what the heck is a kekeke?
The goofy conspiratorial laugh that Roscoe Pecoe Train (from the Dukes of Hazard) had?
Testiculus Giganticus
13-Aug-2002, 00:17
I don`t think that is a valid comparison. The only thing from DX9 that could/may/will be implemented by means of the host CPU in a VIABLE manner is VS2.0. CPUs have a different design and differenr purposes. They are still far more programable, almost infinetly, and the goal with CPUs with each gen is to gain speed, not features, so the transistor count remains fairly low. VPUs on the other hand, are not as programable, but are slowly getting there, so the purpose is mainly to add FEATURES at better than last gen speed. Transistor counts will increase until VPUs become programable enough. That is why I am more than skeptical in this matter, and, considering Trident`s track record, I find it impossible to believe that they found the means to do such a complicated VPU with such a low transistor count.
I think you missed my point.
You could (no maybe here) implement a software rasterizer with the entire DX9 feature set. It certainly wouldn't be fast. My point is that you could create DX9 class card with that low a transistor budget.
I do agree, however, that you would be very hard pressed to get full DX9 compatibility and the speed they are claiming with that sort of transistor budget.
Geeforcer
13-Aug-2002, 00:24
I don't see why you couldn't create a fully DX9 compatible chip with just 30 million transitors. Afterall, you could implement the entire DX9 pipeline on a CPU that has just as many or less transitors than that. Of course it wouldn't be fast, but that is a different issue than actually supporting the features.
I'm not saying that it does (support DX9 features), just that you can't discredit it based solely on transistor count.
I hope they are able to deliver.
I have yet to see pixel shader effects (1.0, let alone 2.0) run successfully on a CPU.
While I doubt that (you have probably seen some more 'mundane' things possible with pixel shaders implemented in old software engines), it is beside the point. Just becauase you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't possible.
I really don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
The CPU is a general puprose processor. You tell it what to do and it does it. You tell it to do this or that with some texels and pixels and it'll do it The entire DX9 pipeline could be implemented on a CPU. That doesn't mean you would want to, of course, but it is possible.
And now we are straying from the point of this topic...
OpenGL guy
13-Aug-2002, 02:08
You could (no maybe here) implement a software rasterizer with the entire DX9 feature set. It certainly wouldn't be fast. My point is that you could create DX9 class card with that low a transistor budget.
Is this what you think Trident did?
I do agree, however, that you would be very hard pressed to get full DX9 compatibility and the speed they are claiming with that sort of transistor budget.
If you could get 70% of the performance of the Radeon 9700 via software emulation (which is what you are describing), then don't you think people would have done this instead of making such a complex chip? CPUs are very programmable, but they don't lend themselves to massively parallel operations unless they are specifically designed to do so. This is one reason why CPUs aren't replacing video cards. Also, a 30 million transistor CPU isn't going to be parallel enough to give reasonable results as a 3D rasterizer trying to compete with the Radeon 9700.
Think about a Pentium 4 trying to execute pixel shader operations in SSE2. How many cycles does it take to compute a single MAD (multiply and add) operation? Then you can figure out the maximum number of common single instruction shaders you can execute in a second. I bet it doesn't compare too well to any reasonably fast 3D chip. Don't forget I didn't compute vertex operations, depth testing, fog, or alpha blending operations (to name a few).
Miscommunicating has to be the cause of some of the biggest problems in human history...
You could (no maybe here) implement a software rasterizer with the entire DX9 feature set. It certainly wouldn't be fast. My point is that you could create DX9 class card with that low a transistor budget.
Is this what you think Trident did?
Hardly. I don't think they'll have a full DX9 feature set, and right now I would question whether they will have any (DX9 features). I put in bold my main point.
My main point isn't that Trident might be using the CPU to achieve DX9 features (I don't think they are), merely that you couldn't dismiss them having a DX9 feature set based on transistor count alone (as the original poster this was intended for seemed to be doing). To demonstrate this point I brought up CPUs as an example of a low transistor count processor that could achieve full DX9 compatibility (with the obvious sacrifice of speed).
Nothing more.
I do agree, however, that you would be very hard pressed to get full DX9 compatibility and the speed they are claiming with that sort of transistor budget.
If you could get 70% of the performance of the Radeon 9700 via software emulation (which is what you are describing), then don't you think people would have done this instead of making such a complex chip? CPUs are very programmable, but they don't lend themselves to massively parallel operations unless they are specifically designed to do so. This is one reason why CPUs aren't replacing video cards. Also, a 30 million transistor CPU isn't going to be parallel enough to give reasonable results as a 3D rasterizer trying to compete with the Radeon 9700.
Think about a Pentium 4 trying to execute pixel shader operations in SSE2. How many cycles does it take to compute a single MAD (multiply and add) operation? Then you can figure out the maximum number of common single instruction shaders you can execute in a second. I bet it doesn't compare too well to any reasonably fast 3D chip. Don't forget I didn't compute vertex operations, depth testing, fog, or alpha blending operations (to name a few).
Once again you are missing my point, but hopefully what I wrote above is enough to clarify.
OpenGL guy
13-Aug-2002, 03:16
Once again you are missing my point, but hopefully what I wrote above is enough to clarify.
Sorry, I thought you were trying to say this is what you thought Trident could be doing. Everything is possible (within reason) on a CPU, but getting reasonable performance is often an issue :)
Chalnoth
13-Aug-2002, 04:10
1024x768x32 with no aniso and no AA with pixel and vertex shader support in hardware is by no means ugly, and not at all "stupid". :roll:
It absolutely is, if you're attempting to say it's as good as a GeForce4 Ti 4400, or 70% as good as the Radeon 9700.
I own a GeForce4 Ti 4200, and almost never run without aniso or FSAA. If the "average" user actually believes that Tridents' claims are correct (assuming their aniso/FSAA isn't up to par...which is probably a very good assumption given the very small transistor count), then they have been fooled.
That said, I have been saying for some time that I'd like to see a low-end DX8 card. If Trident can indeed produce stable and compatible drivers for these video cards, then they will be good for the gaming market as a whole.
I just have problems with the claims of performance close to their competitors' high-end products if they cannot produce the FSAA/aniso performance as well.
Kristof
13-Aug-2002, 07:49
Did anyone here consider that scoring 70 or 80% of a competitors performance can actually be quite bad depending on the benchmark ? Say you take a game that is pretty much completely CPU limited and your flashy new Trident XP scores 70 or 80% of the competitors... well that means your performance is bad since the CPU is doing a lot of overhead work that the competitors do not need.
When Marketing makes such statements you always need to take it with a huge grain of salt since you do not know the data they are basing their claims on. Without knowing the actual aplication, system used, drivers used, setting used, etc... its impossible to be impressed or dissapointed by the claim.
Take a game like Morrowind, which I believe is fairly slow due to CPU limitations, if they claim 70 to 80 % for that it would be non-impressive.
So for now lets keep our heads cool and not get excited about wild marketing claims during an interview. Trident is in their "Hype Period", they are trying to get people to notice them.
About using DX8.1/9.0 in their press release, its the same trick as always : all DX7 boards can run DX9 interface games thanks to Microsofts backwards compatibility. Does their hardware have any of the new DX9.0 features ? Using the CPU for vertex processing they might have VS2.0 but with their claimed chip complexity I doubt they have FP pixel shaders. If they do it will be pretty slow.
I am still wondering about their "smart-tile (tm)". Is it :
a) Simple tile based memory layout, so render a triangle in little rectangular areas rather than triangle scan line per scan line.
b) PowerVR front-end system : grab the whole scene, sort the geometry into screen space tile areas and then render these tiles in an immediate mode way without advanced early Z. If its this system one has to wonder about the efficiency of their sorting, do they have hardware, how and where do they store the scene...
c) something else
My personal hunch is that its just (a) dusted off and hyped up...
K-
OpenGL guy
13-Aug-2002, 08:02
I am still wondering about their "smart-tile (tm)". Is it :
or:
d) a good Mahjong program :D
Wow, the amount of FUD :o
Some seem to get really nervous 8)
Randell
13-Aug-2002, 08:50
Since I don't seem to remember DX7-class hardware like a GF4MX or R7500 ever claiming DX8 "compliance
Have you ever read a Gf4MX box? Certainly claims DX8.x on the ones I've looked at.
Goes back to what Kristof said above about backwards compatibility.
mboeller
13-Aug-2002, 09:32
Wow, the amount of FUD :o
Some seem to get really nervous 8)
I don't think so. Look at the guys who spread FUD; they are nearly the same who spread NV30 rumors. So IMHO they are only upset that their "beloved" NV30 is on the backburner now and the XP4 gets all the recognition. :lol:
mboeller
13-Aug-2002, 09:34
I am still wondering about their "smart-tile (tm)". Is it :
a) Simple tile based memory layout, so render a triangle in little rectangular areas rather than triangle scan line per scan line.
b) PowerVR front-end system : grab the whole scene, sort the geometry into screen space tile areas and then render these tiles in an immediate mode way without advanced early Z. If its this system one has to wonder about the efficiency of their sorting, do they have hardware, how and where do they store the scene...
c) something else
My personal hunch is that its just (a) dusted off and hyped up...
K-
You didn't read the interview. Shame on You :lol:
They clearly say that it's point a); so its only marketing talk.
Kristof
13-Aug-2002, 09:47
Now, now... I did read it but was not entirly sure :
GD: Your technology uses a form of Tile-based rendering. If this technology is so effective why do you think that Kyro went the way of the do-do bird?
Le: Our 3D graphics engine is actually based on immediate-mode rendering, but with a tile-based rasterization engine. We do not implement the tile-based rendering as used in Kyro. The key advantage of tiling in rasterization is much better memory bandwidth utilization as compared to scan-line rasterization. Tiling in rasterization improves memory bandwidth efficiency from 35 to 90 percent.
I can just not imagine how marketing can take a feature that Voodoo1 already had and turn it into the worlds greatest bandwidth saver :)
K-
demalion
13-Aug-2002, 09:51
1024x768x32 with no aniso and no AA with pixel and vertex shader support in hardware is by no means ugly, and not at all "stupid". :roll:
It absolutely is, if you're attempting to say it's as good as a GeForce4 Ti 4400, or 70% as good as the Radeon 9700.
I own a GeForce4 Ti 4200, and almost never run without aniso or FSAA. If the "average" user actually believes that Tridents' claims are correct (assuming their aniso/FSAA isn't up to par...which is probably a very good assumption given the very small transistor count), then they have been fooled.
That said, I have been saying for some time that I'd like to see a low-end DX8 card. If Trident can indeed produce stable and compatible drivers for these video cards, then they will be good for the gaming market as a whole.
I just have problems with the claims of performance close to their competitors' high-end products if they cannot produce the FSAA/aniso performance as well.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about the PR spin Trident is offering, I'm talking about what the card could mean to consumers...hence the rest of the post that quote went with. The rest of your text doesn't address my post, just this quote and your own priorities. And you sure like to throw around the term "stupid" freely...do you really hold others who don't have your same priorities or demands in 3D graphics output in such contempt? In any case, that seems largely irrelevant to the 3d card marketplace.
Please read it again...if you don't get anything more out of it than that quote and this reply, let us save the spam and end the cycle of replies here. As a matter of fact, we can end the replies between us here anyways, as plenty of others seem to be saying the same thing and you could pick any one.
mboeller
13-Aug-2002, 10:19
Now, now... I did read it but was not entirly sure :
GD: Your technology uses a form of Tile-based rendering. If this technology is so effective why do you think that Kyro went the way of the do-do bird?
Le: Our 3D graphics engine is actually based on immediate-mode rendering, but with a tile-based rasterization engine. We do not implement the tile-based rendering as used in Kyro. The key advantage of tiling in rasterization is much better memory bandwidth utilization as compared to scan-line rasterization. Tiling in rasterization improves memory bandwidth efficiency from 35 to 90 percent.
I can just not imagine how marketing can take a feature that Voodoo1 already had and turn it into the worlds greatest bandwidth saver :)
K-
Maybe the Trident card's didn't had it until now? This could explain some of the really bad performance this cards have.
And; Marketing is free to do what they want. Reality has no force over them, quite the contrary (bad) marketing defines what they think reality should be. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Pardon me if I've missed the obvious during my long stay on these boards, but do current GPUs do SIMD? If not, does it sound like the XP4 will? Either way, is it a worthwhile advantage for 3D games?
Oh and what the heck is a kekeke?An anime reference--it's a Japanese laugh/giggle, I think.
Kristof
13-Aug-2002, 11:03
Pardon me if I've missed the obvious during my long stay on these boards, but do current GPUs do SIMD? If not, does it sound like the XP4 will? Either way, is it a worthwhile advantage for 3D games?
Yes, Vertex shaders are very obviously SIMD and the multiple pipelines of the rasterizer can also largely be seen as SIMD (4 pipes working on the same polygon, just different pixels hence slightly different data). The PS itself is also SIMD, working on 3/4 colour components using the same instruction.
K-
RussSchultz
13-Aug-2002, 13:12
Pardon me if I've missed the obvious during my long stay on these boards, but do current GPUs do SIMD? If not, does it sound like the XP4 will? Either way, is it a worthwhile advantage for 3D games?
Oh and what the heck is a kekeke?An anime reference--it's a Japanese laugh/giggle, I think.
Wow. I had no idea the Dukes of Hazzard were into anime. ;)
Dukes of Hazzard in Hentai Shocker!
:o
Ah set 'em up an' Russ knocks 'em down. Yee-haw! :D
BoddoZerg
13-Aug-2002, 20:51
kekeke.
Dukes of Hazzard in Hentai Shocker!
With a good peppering of tentacles.
All right, I'm going to take a shower, I feel dirty.
Kristof
13-Aug-2002, 22:01
Can we get back to the 3D Technology and Hardware related subject 8)
Yep sure thing Kristof.
The Trident XP4 is a brilliant accomplishment. DX8.1 in hardware, support for VS 1.0 and PS 1.4 - possibly beyond VS 1.0 for only 30 million transistors.
Lets not take that away from Trident even if they are bending the truth a little with implying that DX9.0 is, ahem, supported via hardware.
If this is all true and the XP4 goes on sale soon it will surely be snapped up by OEM's and give the Radeon 9000 Pro and GF4 Ti4200 a run for its money in the market segment Trident wish to conquer.
Just wish it was possible to do it without the usual FUD.
Is that OK Kristof? 8)
PS I am sure that the Trident chip could play those excellent anime movies with hardware iDCT etc on TV Out.. kekekekke
Edit: I wish I could spell
Actually isn't that VS 1.1 rather than 1.0?
Anyways, I hope they bring PS 1.4 support instead of just 1.3.
If so we have three chips supporting it.
I did a search from Google for the DX8.1 spec and was referred back to Beyond3d.com ... anyways Ante P you are probably right there :)
And it doesnt matter if there are 3 cards out there with support to PS 1.4 (which IMHO they NEED to be fully compliant with DX8.1)... PS 2.0 is the next big thing and the majority of the high end cards out there right now is still PS 1.3 or less.
Geeforcer
13-Aug-2002, 22:52
The Trident XP4 is a brilliant accomplishment. DX8.1 in hardware, support for VS 1.0 and PS 1.4 - possibly beyond VS 1.0 for only 30 million transistors.
Don't you think its a wee bit premature to make such conclusions, considering that we have no image quality or performance data, or even track record to rely on?
I never commented on performance, IQ or 'data.'
It is an amazing achievement to have a DX8.1 GPU with 30 million transistors ready for mass market. Even the Radeon 9000 Pro has 40 million odd transistors.
I did a search from Google for the DX8.1 spec and was referred back to Beyond3d.com ... anyways Ante P you are probably right there :)
And it doesnt matter if there are 3 cards out there with support to PS 1.4 (which IMHO they NEED to be fully compliant with DX8.1)... PS 2.0 is the next big thing and the majority of the high end cards out there right now is still PS 1.3 or less.
how do you figure?
there's three cards (GF4Ti, Xabre and Parhelia) that "only" support 1.3, three cards (Radeon 8500, 9000 and XP4) which support 1.4 and only one card (GF3) with the mere 1.1 support
and the three cards that support 1.4 are actually on the low budget side of things so support for them would be pretty logical now
I mean suddenly programming for 1.4 support doesn't seem like a far fetched novelty anymore
Bambers
14-Aug-2002, 00:30
Most average gamers can't infact see the difference with and without aniso and FSAA. Most people with gf3/4s run without aniso or aa.
The reason they don't use TNT2s is because they don't have the raw power, many still have gf2mxs though.
I've just come back from the i12 event in the UK and out of all the screens I saw, mine was the only one using aniso. Now this wasnt a particularly thorough survey (I was there to play games, get drunk and meet people not to check for aniso :D ) but it is easy to spot when you walk past a modded case with a window clearly showing a gf4 ti4400/4600 inside and the user is playing q3/CS in ~800x600 no AA or af.
Randell
14-Aug-2002, 17:13
hehe bambers what games did you play? I know several people who went to i12
Chalnoth
14-Aug-2002, 22:09
It is an amazing achievement to have a DX8.1 GPU with 30 million transistors ready for mass market. Even the Radeon 9000 Pro has 40 million odd transistors.
I'd say it will be if it actually has working DX8.1 features. Granted, I think there's a good possibility it will work as currently advertised, but I think the judgement on the status of Trident's achievement should be held off until cards ship.
Chalnoth, for one of those rare occassions i agree with you 100% :oops:
Lets see what the future brings :D
multigl2
15-Aug-2002, 01:54
It is an amazing achievement to have a DX8.1 GPU with 30 million transistors ready for mass market. Even the Radeon 9000 Pro has 40 million odd transistors.
I'd say it will be if it actually has working DX8.1 features. Granted, I think there's a good possibility it will work as currently advertised, but I think the judgement on the status of Trident's achievement should be held off until cards ship.
could be a hardwired Tnl unit and vertex shader functionality by the host CPU.
But their charts say "hardware pixel/vertex shaders," leading one to believe the functionality is all on-chip.
multigl2
15-Aug-2002, 02:21
But their charts say "hardware pixel/vertex shaders," leading one to believe the functionality is all on-chip.
lol I posted that above having actually not taken a look at their site or papers at all. sorry, but thanks for the correction.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.