Beautiful landscapes are prettier than portraits

What are your feelings about that development?

  • I want the FullHD display, no matter what! It'll look so much better! I don't care about the perform

    Votes: 14 4.0%
  • FullHD would've been nice, but with those issues, HalfHD is better. I still would've preferred FullH

    Votes: 72 20.8%
  • FullHD is overkill anyways in my opinion. HalfHD is way better suited for a screen that size.

    Votes: 139 40.2%
  • CPU performance and easy development are more important than the higher resolution. I'm fine with th

    Votes: 208 60.1%
  • I don't really care about the difference between FullHD or HalfHD - it's more important that the gam

    Votes: 116 33.5%

  • Total voters
    346

Guys, we have to be real serious around God Ginrai.. Every joke has to be approved by his high standards. This is paramount, ensure that all jokes are accurate and not exaggerated in any way. Heed my warnings...
 
Guys, we have to be real serious around God Ginrai.. Every joke has to be approved by his high standards. This is paramount, ensure that all jokes are accurate and not exaggerated in any way. Heed my warnings...
QFT. (︶ - ︶)

-God Ginrai
 
Also, it seems like quite a shame that Nvidia build a device with impressive specs, only to have it bottlenecked by the perf hit on the orientation.


I can hardly imagine Nvidia making such a business decision...
AIUI there's no significant perf hit if you're using Android or sticking to X-windows, as you can instruct both of those just to render everything one way or the other. This fuss is primarily so that Pandora apps can run with minimal (or no) changes, and make writing native apps that write directly to the framebuffer slightly more logical.
 
You know, it won't be bad if there's no backward compatibility as I will keep using my Pandora for the old stuff and Pyra for new stuff. That way there will not be any degradation in Pandora value for years to come. :)
 
I think 1280x720 will be fine.  I have a Nexus5 1080p phone, and I'll be damned if I can notice the difference from my former 720p OneX of same screen size running side by side (without staring exteremely closely).  Even my Nexus7 (R1) tablet at 720p looks great, no issues with pixel density there.

Either way, almost everything needs to be scaled up just to be legible on a 5" screen.

1280x800 would be a bonus, just to get that extra height in desktop mode.  Means you essentially get a toolbar for free, without eating into app space.
 
ED, when will you actually receive the chip & lcd and be able to test it?
 
It's a shame there is no MIPI landscape LCD, even if resolution is even lower than 720p. I know most people here disagree, but I'm sure even a "low resolution" 1024x600 screen would be more than enough for a 5" screen, specially if the main use will be emulating old games.
 
It's a shame there is no MIPI landscape LCD, even if resolution is even lower than 720p. I know most people here disagree, but I'm sure even a "low resolution" 1024x600 screen would be more than enough for a 5" screen, specially if the main use will be emulating old games.
While it will be a great game system. Remember, the Pyra, and its predecessor before it, are homebrew handhelds, not just emulation handhelds. Sure, the emulators are the most popular apps, but that doesn't mean that homebrew and ports should be disregarded.

-God Ginrai
 
So if 1080p is 46% cpu time at worst for rotating the framebuffer, isnt the ratio for 720p managable with software rotation ala randr?

I understand hardware-flipping with GPU is a more involved approach, but its one for apps that are complex anyway (things one cannot do on cpu alone)

That would make it ok to have a 720p screen without scaling hardware?

Extra hardware cost extra money, and going 720p is already square in the cost-effective part of the venn diagram, some of that is lost by adding cost where it isnt absolutely needed.

If the cutoff point is something like genesis emulation, does one really need to invest extra engineering effort at what is outside of that scope.

I think it could be a diminishing return because thats possibly few user not that much of the time, and those things can be tackled elsewhere as mentioned.

Scaling hardware adding artifacts is one thing, in my experience it adds lag (if only one frame)  Colour calibration isnt a huge plus since the display isnt a pro level one.

Could be wrong on all accounts, but those are my thoughts nontheless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So if 1080p is 46% cpu time at worst for rotating the framebuffer
Copying the framebuffer. It would seem that rotation shouldn't be too much more, just swapping x and y, but with a copy your moving a string of bytes into another single location whereas with the rotation you're copying a string of bytes, cutting it up, and putting individual bytes in different locations. I can imagine some tricks for making straight copying faster, but I won't guess as to how much it may be.
 
Ed: if somebody comes up with a way to work without this chip, can it be switched off with no power or latency cost?


I like the idea of 1080p as I think it sounds good spec wise, but the screen is pretty awesome on my nexus 4, so I can't imagine this one will be bad, and if we can eliminate the latency cost for gles apps then it's not a big issue for me
 
The chip is only 4 EUR and makes usage and backwards compatibility so much easier.
Did you happen to ask them if they have a 1080p version of the rotation chip in the works?  I.e. are they going to release a new version of this chip right after you test and set up for 720p?

720p will be fine though.
 
Back
Top