Designing The Gp2x's Successor - Hardware Selection Poll

[Shikaku]

You can still have a screen that has a physical size of 320x240 but a resolution of 640x480, it's just really expensive.

In 2-3 years it probably will not be expensive anylonger.

And maybe have dead pixal problems... you don't know =)

 

[stormyandcold]

i think the screen thing is a biggy for me. 640x480 is definately the way to go and wud open up a whole new slice of gaming action.

most pc games have 640x480 as minimum res, some go even lower as we all know.

not to say we can expect more pc games playable on the successor (altho its very likely).

3yrs is a long time in the tech world and prices come down drastically.

release it in 2010 with 640x480 screen, minimum 400mhz processor, 128mb+ n add in ati or nvidia mobile solution (they'll b lots of options by then)

 

[iignotus]

If we had a 640 x 480 3.5" screen and doubled the pixels for a 320 x 240 image the (4) 640 x 480 sized pixels would be NO blockier than a single pixel on a 320 x 240 3.5" screen.

What? Of course it would be blockier. That's the whole point. It would be four times blockier. Look at my images, if you haven't.

2:1 on a 640 x 480 screen would be the SAME as 1:1 on a 320 x 240 screen of the same size. It would not be 4X blockier as the pixels are 4X SMALLER on a 640 x 480 screen.. duh

That's true, but I said the screen wouldn't be the same size. 640x480 at 3.5" is very hard to come by without spending an arm and a leg.

 

[sam fisher]

I still dislike the idea at but I do like the picture of a sperm with a bullet sticking out of the side surrounded by a claw.

If we had a 640 x 480 3.5" screen and doubled the pixels for a 320 x 240 image the (4) 640 x 480 sized pixels would be NO blockier than a single pixel on a 320 x 240 3.5" screen.

What? Of course it would be blockier. That's the whole point. It would be four times blockier. Look at my images, if you haven't.

2:1 on a 640 x 480 screen would be the SAME as 1:1 on a 320 x 240 screen of the same size. It would not be 4X blockier as the pixels are 4X SMALLER on a 640 x 480 screen.. duh

Dave, give up, he doesn't get it.

iignotus, no matter what size the 640*480 display, it would still be the same as a 1:1 320*240. Due to the fact that every pixel is doubled. It's not like everypixel is multiplied by 1.5. Then it would look shite.

 

[iignotus]

Dave, give up, he doesn't get it.

iignotus, no matter what size the 640*480 display, it would still be the same as a 1:1 320*240. Due to the fact that every pixel is doubled. It's not like everypixel is multiplied by 1.5. Then it would look shite.

Shut the hell up you smartass "know-it-all". You're completely fucking wrong. If a 640x480 and 320x240 screen had the same pixel density, any given sprite/image on the 640x480 screen would take 4 times as much space, physically, as well as 4 times as many pixels, than on the 320x240. Now if the 640x480's screen has 4 times the pixel density as the 320x240, making them the same size, any given sprite/image would still be displayed on 4 times as many pixels, but in the same given physical size.

It is blockier. I didn't say it would be shittily resized, I said there would be 4 pixels for every 1, making it blockier-looking. When you get a math major from an Ivy league or equivalent, you can start pretending to be intelligent again. You don't get it.

 

[sam fisher]

Dave, give up, he doesn't get it.

iignotus, no matter what size the 640*480 display, it would still be the same as a 1:1 320*240. Due to the fact that every pixel is doubled. It's not like everypixel is multiplied by 1.5. Then it would look shite.

Shut the hell up you smartass "know-it-all". You're completely fucking wrong. If a 640x480 and 320x240 screen had the same pixel density, any given sprite/image on the 640x480 screen would take 4 times as much space, physically, as well as 4 times as many pixels, than on the 320x240. Now if the 640x480's screen has 4 times the pixel density as the 320x240, making them the same size, any given sprite/image would still be displayed on 4 times as many pixels, but in the same given physical size.

It is blockier. I didn't say it would be shittily resized, I said there would be 4 pixels for every 1, making it blockier-looking. When you get a math major from an Ivy league or equivalent, you can start pretending to be intelligent again. You don't get it.

320*240 upscaled by pixel doubling to a 640*480 display would essentially look THE SAME. If the screens were the same size, physically.

 

[iignotus]

320*240 upscaled by pixel doubling to a 640*480 display would essentially look THE SAME. If the screens were the same size, physically.

Essentially, maybe; under reasonably-close inspection, no. And, ho ho! what's this, I already cased if they were the same size (learn to read), and I also said that they likely wouldn't be since a 3.5" screen with that resolution is hard to find and prohibitively expensive. You prattle on like you're some undiscovered genius, and yet you fail to recognise simple geometric ideas.

 

[sam fisher]

No I am just stating that it would double 4 times the number of pixels yet the same shapes. So it wouldn't be corrupted in any way by the stretching.

 

[DaveC]

320*240 upscaled by pixel doubling to a 640*480 display would essentially look THE SAME. If the screens were the same size, physically.

Essentially, maybe; under reasonably-close inspection, no. And, ho ho! what's this, I already cased if they were the same size (learn to read), and I also said that they likely wouldn't be since a 3.5" screen with that resolution is hard to find and prohibitively expensive. You prattle on like you're some undiscovered genius, and yet you fail to recognise simple geometric ideas.

A 640 x 480 screen that would look blocky doubled would have to be much bigger, bigger than what they would put in a handheld. That is why the "too blocky" argument is moot and my reason holds. They aren't going to put a 7" screen in a handheld. Even if they used a 4" screen a pixel doubled 640 x 480 image wouldn't look blocky. The equivalent doubled pixels would be slightly bigger than a 320 x 240 but hardly noticeable.

There are some PPCs with 640 x 480 screens about the same size as the GP2X.

That said I don't really think 640 x 480 is needed in a handheld this size. The best reason for it is to keep the same crowd that whines about "no wifi" from bitching that the screen res is "too low, it is lower than my PSP"

 

[iignotus]

No I am just stating that it would double 4 times the number of pixels yet the same shapes. So it wouldn't be corrupted in any way by the stretching.

And why are you saying that? Especially as counterpoint to what I said? I never said it would be corrupted or resized badly by only doubling every other pixel or something stupid, like you somehow think. I just said that it would be blockier, that 4 pixels would now take up the same as 1. Yet, you had to butt in with your condescending, self-righteous attitude like it belonged here.

A 640 x 480 screen that would look blocky doubled would have to be much bigger

No it wouldn't. Any bigger would be a little bit blockier. Is it a huge problem? No. Is it exactly what I've already mentioned? Yes.

That is why the "too blocky" argument is moot and my reason holds.

"Too block" is a very subjective thing to say. Not to mention that you're supposed to be all about fine details. Or maybe not.

Even if they used a 4" screen a pixel doubled 640 x 480 image wouldn't look blocky.

Subjective. You can't say they would or they wouldn't, as its noticeability is up to the viewer. Technically, mathematically, it would be blockier. The only argument you can make is that it wouldn't be blocky enough to bother you, which is fine, but completely subjective.

That said I don't really think 640 x 480 is needed in a handheld this size.

And I said that it would be a great improvement, especially if 3D acceleration is prominent on this future handheld.

 

[Shikaku]

Subjective

*Phoenix Wright Style* SUBJECTIVE!!

 

[iignotus]

Subjective

*Phoenix Wright Style* SUBJECTIVE!!

:lol:

 

[DaveC]

Subjective. You can't say they would or they wouldn't, as its noticeability is up to the viewer. Technically, mathematically, it would be blockier. The only argument you can make is that it wouldn't be blocky enough to bother you, which is fine, but completely subjective.

And I said that it would be a great improvement, especially if 3D acceleration is prominent on this future handheld.

Yes mathematically any increase in screen size and therefore pixel size would technically be blockier. The argument that I AM making is that in a handheld of this size it wouldn't be enough to bother 99% of all users, me included, unless the screen went to 7" or something like that.

Actually 640 x 480 would not be a great improvement.

For emus it would make no difference. for 3D the edges of polys would be sharper but it would also make the requirement for fill rate go up 4X. This would cause games to get choppy and/or you would need to use less polygons per scene because of fill rate. On a screen this size it really would not be worth the trade off.

 

[iignotus]

Actually, it can be argued that the only thing I have in my head which I desire this larger resolution for is ports/homebrew. The first thing that pops into my head is Super Mario War, which is made to be played at 640x480. There are literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other games -- mostly OpenGL/3D games -- that would benefit from a VGA resolution.

However, upon writing this, I realise that video and movie playback (a feature which attracts many users to the GP2X and PSP) would look much, much better on a VGA screen.

For emus it would make no difference. for 3D the edges of polys would be sharper but it would also make the requirement for fill rate go up 4X. This would cause games to get choppy and/or you would need to use less polygons per scene because of fill rate. On a screen this size it really would not be worth the trade off.

Hardware scalers are wonderful things. If you say doubling up each pixel each way doesn't look bad, this can be left to a builtin hardware scaler, which takes barely any resources or current at all (as far as I know). The GP2X's very own hardware scaler is used often, with little to no performance hit.

In three years, I venture it would be stupid not to have a handheld with VGA resolution.

 

[Epicenter]

Hardware scalers are wonderful things. If you say doubling up each pixel each way doesn't look bad, this can be left to a builtin hardware scaler, which takes barely any resources or current at all (as far as I know). The GP2X's very own hardware scaler is used often, with little to no performance hit.

In three years, I venture it would be stupid not to have a handheld with VGA resolution.

The hardware scaler in the GP2X draws tons of power; that's why a non-320x240 encoded video will result in dramatically reduced battery life. That said, not many 640x480 videos exist ... you'd still need to do some encoding in an ideal world. But most SoCs like the S3C2460 don't use such ludicriously power-hungry scalers. Nor do they use TV output hardware that would knock an hour and a half or more off your battery. :rolleyes:

 

[iignotus]

The hardware scaler in the GP2X draws tons of power; that's why a non-320x240 encoded video will result in dramatically reduced battery life.

Ah, good to know.

That said, not many 640x480 videos exist ... you'd still need to do some encoding in an ideal world.

Hmmm? Tons of video that size exists. Almost all DVD rips are scaled to 640xXXX (or stay at 720xXXX). All anime videos I have (what? :lol: don't ask) are 640x480. Video output from my camcorder (on the DV cassette) is 640x480. Direct NTSC television signal is (roughly) 640x480, and lots of non-HDTV shows are distriubted in the size. All of those are top on the list of things people like to watch on the go.

But most SoCs like the S3C2460 don't use such ludicriously power-hungry scalers. Nor do they use TV output hardware that would knock an hour and a half or more off your battery. :rolleyes:

Heh well that's good to know as well. I knew that there wasn't much of a cpu hit with the GP2X's scaler, but I didn't know it killed the batteries like that. Though as you say, there are much better ones out there.

 

[Epicenter]

You get a lot of 640x480 DVD rip releases? How peculiar. Almost everything I get is 720x480. Some TV rips are closer to 640x480 but that's about it. Maybe they're from a PAL source, that's a bit on the squarer side and there is a bit of a border ..

 

[iignotus]

You get a lot of 640x480 DVD rip releases? How peculiar. Almost everything I get is 720x480. Some TV rips are closer to 640x480 but that's about it. Maybe they're from a PAL source, that's a bit on the squarer side and there is a bit of a border ..

Yes, to reiterate, almost all of my anime videos are straight DVD rips, and at 640xXXX resolution (usually straight VGA). Anyone who's more into the scene than I am can comment on how common it is. I just downloaded Elfen Lied and it's in 704x384, which is at least much closer to VGA than the QVGA that's popular today.

 

[markiej]

I think a better option would be a true massive upgrade

• 20-60gb hard drive
• enough proc muscle for full speed psx, n64, gba emu
• enough muscle for dreamcast-level native apps
• better multimedia integration
• li-on battery (with affordable replacements/extras)
• include ac adapter & car adapter (or make available)
• keep 4:3 screen & resolution, but make a bit (brighter, better angles)

Otherwise it won't be worth the hassle to upgrade & gp2x can serve the people well in the intervening 2 years

 

[iignotus]

20-60gb hard drive

Battery life = 0.

li-on battery (with affordable replacements/extras)

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Never. 4AA would be just about as bulky as a decent LiIon battery and would probably power it for longer.