LHC
hello
Last edited by a moderator:
Gpx2 Unvailed!!
- Thread starter joan
- Start date
Ringo
Member
I just wondered about this. It's not mentioned if this thing has an internal clock or not... This would sertainly be useful in several PDA-like programs.
leebf
Still Fresh
All sounds pretty good but is that thing at the bottom really some kind of rubber 'bumper'?
Depending on the price and the availabilty of good emulators i think i'd get one. I had to sell my gp32 so this looks like quite a promising handheld (when i get some money).
Depending on the price and the availabilty of good emulators i think i'd get one. I had to sell my gp32 so this looks like quite a promising handheld (when i get some money).
BaDToaD
"Very" Old Timer
Personally I think the GPX2 is more of a replacement than a sucessor to the GP32 and as such may not warrant an "upgrade" unless you want slightly improved emulation, improved movies or greater storage capacity.
I for one think the Ninja specs are much more exciting.
I for one think the Ninja specs are much more exciting.
x68000
Mega GP Mania
i'm going to hope that it is more of a successor, but if not then we'll still have a great handheld which will surely garner support from the existing emu devvers and hopefully draw in some fresh talent.
WarmFluffyUK posted on Jul 27 2005 at 01:06 PM said:Heck, I just realised, looking at the specs on the site there's no WIFI on it. I was hopeing for wireless network. Oh well.
Seeing as it takes SD cards and run as a verison of Linux, it's likely we could get an SD Wi-Fi card running on it.
Mark.
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC posted on Jul 29 2005 at 04:52 AM said:
Same thing I was going to ask... Or does the OS Like Shutdown when an Emu / Game is started???
If the price is right after a few months of its release I might get one...
Right now, No one can say its going to emulate extra consoles or if it will even emulate the ones that are currently on the GP32 any better, for all you know the Linux OS could be eating up half its power or the Dual core CPU thing might make it harder to programme for (Like the New Consoles are hard to code games on. Gabe (The Valve guy) said all coders need to throw their existing code away and start from scratch)
And at the Same time, You cant say it wont emulate extra consoles... for all you know a PSX Emu could be running at 15 - 20 FPS on it
So what we realy need to do is all stop saying "It will emulate this and that" and "It wont emulate anything any better" and Wait a few months and see what it can do, Technically no one here can say anything good or bad about it as no one has played / tried one yet !!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Squidge
Certified Guru
When are people going to realize that we don't have two processors? Just a single 200Mhz processor and a cheapass 2d processor that seems like it can do scaling, mpeg and very little else? (after all, it's meant for a multimedia machine, not a games machine).
BaDToaD
"Very" Old Timer
The GP32x team seem to be keeping their heads down. How about it guys what are your thoughts on the new GP?
moz
load *,8,1
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo c64 isnt obscure!!!weirdocollector posted on Jul 28 2005 at 06:11 PM said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Bloodsack
Member
It looks sweet
I'll get one
I'll get one
hando
Chief Editor
I am definitely going to buy one so.. click the google ads once a day ) or maybe GPH will send two units for free to test One for ED and one for me
so.. click the google ads once a day ) or maybe GPH will send two units for free to test One for ED and one for me 
Tobriand
Well-Known Member
Wow... that took a long time to read indeed... 3 hours in an internet cafe, and I'm feeling catatonic lol. However, think I ought to add my 2c simply coz I want to.
Personally, I think the device looks extremely slick indeed. What's more, it looks to overcome a few of the weaknesses of our old and extremely faithful friend, the GP32. So that's good as far as it goes.
It doesn't, unfortunately, have Bluetooth, wifi, or anything similar, which is a bit of a dissappointment, and yes, as others have said, I'm a little underwhelmed by the 200MHz cpu. However, I must say, I find a 166MHz GP32 quite amazing still, and the difference when moving up to an insane 200MHz OC is very much noticeable, so its still a plus.
With GP32 compatibility, this would, in my view, be a certain buy... as it is, I'll probably play the waiting game for a month or two to see what happens, possibly (you never know) in time to commit myself for X-mas.
However, there's a few things I feel I do need to point out.
The first is that, a very very quick google for ARM920T yields the TumTum, a GPS device that, in some of its models, runs with that chip set at 400MHz - which is clearly a great deal more than 200MHz. Obviously, however, we don't know yet whether the chip will even overclock - or underclock, for that matter - a bit (possibly one of the things that limits backwards compatibility - remember a lot of GP32 proggies change the CPU speed every few minutes) let alone to 400MHz, but it is well worth pointing out that another device exists for sale at the present time with the same CPU core set at a good bit above the 250MHz mentioned on ARM's site or the 200MHz we've now been promised.
The second is that just as the GBA's ARM7 was MMU-able onto the GP32 in the form of GP-Advance, I don't see any reason why, with an array built to open and read components of an .SMC file sitting on an SD card, the same couldn't be done with the GPX2 to give us backwards compatibility. I imagine, of course, that again the CPU speed would be messed to hell and back, since even at an ideal time, I can't believe we'd get more than a 1:2 instruction ratio (as in for every 1 instuction in GP32 code, 2 CPU cycles would be required), but for old stuff or games, that would help a great deal.
This is an especially plausible idea considering I'm fairly certain the GP32 CPU is a different ARM9 chip, if not actually the same one, so the code ought yo be even easier for it to deal with than that from a chip a couple of generations earlier.
Furthermore, I remember Rattboi telling me in IRC once, during the time when GPAdvance was going through an update a day that he "knew it ould be done, but [he] didn't think it would be done that easily", which implies that, with a few references to our one decently speeded GBA emu one could probably re-write it to give a GP32 output instead. Especially since the reason it is slow is not because of bios wossnames, but rather because on top of the ARM7, there's the GFX chip as well.
The final point I'd like to make is to consider the reasoning behind not making it GP32 compatible. I would suggest that there are several possible reasons for this. The first I've allready touched on - the GP32 plays havoc with its own clockspeed, and we cannot be sure that the central chip we've got in the box now is capable of handling that havoc, even if the core itself is. There are two other obvioous hardware-based reasons. Namely, the screen is different, which could conceivably lead to BLU+ type problems all over again, except possibly worse (who knows?), and the old GP32 bios and SDK were both designed with SMC cards in mind, which, as many here know, are radically different in terms of how they work to an SD card.
So why didn't GamePark Holdings simply take their bios source and write a transparent layer convert SMC instructions to SD ones, possibly at the expense of a few cycles per second whenever reading or writing is taking place? In my view, that's a crucial question. The answer could be that other hardware problems ere also present, so they didn't think it' be worth the bother - the screen could be a LOT worse for compatibility with GP32 screen output code than the BLU+ was for all we know, or the CPU clockspeed changing issues may have caused too many problems with the 2D accellerator. Or there's another reason.
Ladies and gentlemen (mostly gentlemen, but it sounds better with both), I refer you to debates that have taken place in the last few weeks revolving about the presence, now, of not one but TWO companies - Gamepark, and the more homebrew-friendly Gamepark Holdings. I would suggest, perhaps, that the reason no layers or similar have been written is simply because they don't actually own the code the bios for the orginal GP32 is based on. If they did write GP32 compatibility into their new console using the method of shoving a modified old bios in, then conceivably Gamepark could take offence and sue - and you never know what might happen, considering that there's clearly been a quite substantial difference in opinions about which direction the company should head anyway, seeing as there are now two of them.
So what's the oucome of all this? How does it change the situation? Well, to be honest, I don't know. But I would think that it implies there is more to the "no backward compatibility" than merely them not wanting to try. It could me a bit like Gamepark's original stance on emulators - tolerance, but not support. The upshot, though, is, that *possibly* (by no means certainly), backwards compatibility IS a possibility, but NOT one that will ever arrive officially - its one some bloody skilled coder is going to have to pull all the stops out to get to.
Thankfully, we have no shortage of bloody skilled coders in this scene.
Anyone have any comments about the theory, please do say, because it'll be a break from the "GPx2 is crap - no it isn't" arguments that take up probably about 20 pages of this thread lol
P.S.: For those of you who've joined in the last 6 months or so and therefore haven't a clue who I am and actually think I know what I'm talking about as much as some of the people who REALLY know what they're talking about (Squidge, skeezix, many others), I'd better point out that I don't - I'm just not bad at thinking about solutions to situations; everything I'm saying is conjecture and nothing more - unless some people who do know what they're talking about say otherwise.
Personally, I think the device looks extremely slick indeed. What's more, it looks to overcome a few of the weaknesses of our old and extremely faithful friend, the GP32. So that's good as far as it goes.
It doesn't, unfortunately, have Bluetooth, wifi, or anything similar, which is a bit of a dissappointment, and yes, as others have said, I'm a little underwhelmed by the 200MHz cpu. However, I must say, I find a 166MHz GP32 quite amazing still, and the difference when moving up to an insane 200MHz OC is very much noticeable, so its still a plus.
With GP32 compatibility, this would, in my view, be a certain buy... as it is, I'll probably play the waiting game for a month or two to see what happens, possibly (you never know) in time to commit myself for X-mas
.However, there's a few things I feel I do need to point out.
The first is that, a very very quick google for ARM920T yields the TumTum, a GPS device that, in some of its models, runs with that chip set at 400MHz - which is clearly a great deal more than 200MHz. Obviously, however, we don't know yet whether the chip will even overclock - or underclock, for that matter - a bit (possibly one of the things that limits backwards compatibility - remember a lot of GP32 proggies change the CPU speed every few minutes) let alone to 400MHz, but it is well worth pointing out that another device exists for sale at the present time with the same CPU core set at a good bit above the 250MHz mentioned on ARM's site or the 200MHz we've now been promised.
The second is that just as the GBA's ARM7 was MMU-able onto the GP32 in the form of GP-Advance, I don't see any reason why, with an array built to open and read components of an .SMC file sitting on an SD card, the same couldn't be done with the GPX2 to give us backwards compatibility. I imagine, of course, that again the CPU speed would be messed to hell and back, since even at an ideal time, I can't believe we'd get more than a 1:2 instruction ratio (as in for every 1 instuction in GP32 code, 2 CPU cycles would be required), but for old stuff or games, that would help a great deal.
This is an especially plausible idea considering I'm fairly certain the GP32 CPU is a different ARM9 chip, if not actually the same one, so the code ought yo be even easier for it to deal with than that from a chip a couple of generations earlier.
Furthermore, I remember Rattboi telling me in IRC once, during the time when GPAdvance was going through an update a day that he "knew it ould be done, but [he] didn't think it would be done that easily", which implies that, with a few references to our one decently speeded GBA emu one could probably re-write it to give a GP32 output instead. Especially since the reason it is slow is not because of bios wossnames, but rather because on top of the ARM7, there's the GFX chip as well.
The final point I'd like to make is to consider the reasoning behind not making it GP32 compatible. I would suggest that there are several possible reasons for this. The first I've allready touched on - the GP32 plays havoc with its own clockspeed, and we cannot be sure that the central chip we've got in the box now is capable of handling that havoc, even if the core itself is. There are two other obvioous hardware-based reasons. Namely, the screen is different, which could conceivably lead to BLU+ type problems all over again, except possibly worse (who knows?), and the old GP32 bios and SDK were both designed with SMC cards in mind, which, as many here know, are radically different in terms of how they work to an SD card.
So why didn't GamePark Holdings simply take their bios source and write a transparent layer convert SMC instructions to SD ones, possibly at the expense of a few cycles per second whenever reading or writing is taking place? In my view, that's a crucial question. The answer could be that other hardware problems ere also present, so they didn't think it' be worth the bother - the screen could be a LOT worse for compatibility with GP32 screen output code than the BLU+ was for all we know, or the CPU clockspeed changing issues may have caused too many problems with the 2D accellerator. Or there's another reason.
Ladies and gentlemen (mostly gentlemen, but it sounds better with both), I refer you to debates that have taken place in the last few weeks revolving about the presence, now, of not one but TWO companies - Gamepark, and the more homebrew-friendly Gamepark Holdings. I would suggest, perhaps, that the reason no layers or similar have been written is simply because they don't actually own the code the bios for the orginal GP32 is based on. If they did write GP32 compatibility into their new console using the method of shoving a modified old bios in, then conceivably Gamepark could take offence and sue - and you never know what might happen, considering that there's clearly been a quite substantial difference in opinions about which direction the company should head anyway, seeing as there are now two of them.
So what's the oucome of all this? How does it change the situation? Well, to be honest, I don't know. But I would think that it implies there is more to the "no backward compatibility" than merely them not wanting to try. It could me a bit like Gamepark's original stance on emulators - tolerance, but not support. The upshot, though, is, that *possibly* (by no means certainly), backwards compatibility IS a possibility, but NOT one that will ever arrive officially - its one some bloody skilled coder is going to have to pull all the stops out to get to.
Thankfully, we have no shortage of bloody skilled coders in this scene.
Anyone have any comments about the theory, please do say, because it'll be a break from the "GPx2 is crap - no it isn't" arguments that take up probably about 20 pages of this thread lol
P.S.: For those of you who've joined in the last 6 months or so and therefore haven't a clue who I am and actually think I know what I'm talking about as much as some of the people who REALLY know what they're talking about (Squidge, skeezix, many others), I'd better point out that I don't - I'm just not bad at thinking about solutions to situations; everything I'm saying is conjecture and nothing more - unless some people who do know what they're talking about say otherwise.
selfish admins tell them to send me one
btw. i preorderd some time ago
tell them to send me one btw. i preorderd some time ago
sensible GP32
Well-Known Member
Well you wanted my view here it is
Reading its not backwards compatable with the old gp kinda annoys me ever so slightly.... i guess it was asking alot for it to be, but it is slightly upsetting.
The design is fantastic i love it, it kicks sonys ass in that department which is really good news, no more "is that a fake gba" comments which i know all woe us.
im a bit upset that the power of the thing isnt that good, we still may not ever get to play winuae... sigh
All in All a good little package
Reading its not backwards compatable with the old gp kinda annoys me ever so slightly.... i guess it was asking alot for it to be, but it is slightly upsetting.
The design is fantastic i love it, it kicks sonys ass in that department which is really good news, no more "is that a fake gba" comments which i know all woe us.
im a bit upset that the power of the thing isnt that good, we still may not ever get to play winuae... sigh
All in All a good little package
woogal
Certified Guru
The GP32 also uses the arm920t.Tobriand posted on Jul 29 2005 at 12:39 PM said:
Last edited by a moderator:
rabbits with hats
GP2X
Minimum Requirements: Only can run Corn, but can run UltraHLE but with slow speeds
Pentium 2 200MHZ
32MB RAM
Voodoo 1, TNT,
Any 16 bit PCI sound card
Emulators that work good with this requirements:
Corn, UltraHLE
2nd Minimum Requirements: Can run some roms at full speed with low level emulators
Pentium 2 400MHZ
64MB RAM
Voodoo 2, tnt, Geforce 256
Sound Blaster 64 AWE
Emulators that work good with this requirements:
Corn, UltraHLE, SupraHLE
I Thought I would go back to n64 for Moment.
Do you think we will see a half speed emu with no sound or is it out of the question?
Also what does it say on that bar at the bottom of the console?
Pentium 2 200MHZ
32MB RAM
Voodoo 1, TNT,
Any 16 bit PCI sound card
Emulators that work good with this requirements:
Corn, UltraHLE
2nd Minimum Requirements: Can run some roms at full speed with low level emulators
Pentium 2 400MHZ
64MB RAM
Voodoo 2, tnt, Geforce 256
Sound Blaster 64 AWE
Emulators that work good with this requirements:
Corn, UltraHLE, SupraHLE
I Thought I would go back to n64 for Moment.
Do you think we will see a half speed emu with no sound or is it out of the question?
Also what does it say on that bar at the bottom of the console?
Kop : seen the easy draw you got for champions league?
I just know it'll be liverpool vs Chelsea ASAP, the seeding for chelsea was a joke and UEFA probably hate both teams for the trouble they've caused....
back on topic, in the suggestions forum GPH said that there's a different chip for processing, video and sound, while we obviously know about the CPU and video chips, if the sound chip is powerfull enough couldn't that take a huge load off of emulation?
I just know it'll be liverpool vs Chelsea ASAP, the seeding for chelsea was a joke and UEFA probably hate both teams for the trouble they've caused....
back on topic, in the suggestions forum GPH said that there's a different chip for processing, video and sound, while we obviously know about the CPU and video chips, if the sound chip is powerfull enough couldn't that take a huge load off of emulation?
Vimacs
Don't be evil!
so they are indeed going to make them themself.
also the 2nd cpu is just a rm9 copro with floating point and can be use for general purpose as stated by gph in the sugestions board.
