Quite a bit for you to read!

[EvilDragon]

As many people like myself are not going to buy a Pyra with a handicapped emmc.

Whatever "handicapped" is. zmatt was running the "handicapped" eMMC with 103MB/s already today.
Most mobile devices probably use an eMMC that can't even reach 103MB/s as they're cheaper.
How many out there know the eMMC speed of their smartphones?

Also, being able to READ fast from an eMMC is one thing - but whatever program is loading something from the eMMC needs to be able to make use of the data in that fast speed as well.
A video player will probably not being able to decode the video as fast as the eMMC can deliver the data.

When loading a graphics into GIMP, then the CPU will probably have to struggle more with a 100MB file than the eMMC

Additionally, as you showed with the benchmark above, eMMC speed drops a lot (to 30MB/s on the GPD Win) when reading a lot of small files.
That's the access speed of the eMMC, so if I am correct (needs to be tested), that shouldn't be affected by the crippled eMMC anyways, as the bus speed is a lot higher than what the eMMC can provide.

 

[vcoleiro1]

@ED

I think the most important thing is the answer to the question asked. Is the issue going to be fixed for the next and future batches? If yes , then no problems

I get the feeling the answer is no?

To answer your question, yes, if the max seq speed was restricted to 103MB/s it would put me off. I'm a emmc user only. So a 33% or so speed reduction for seq reads is a put off for me.

 

[Kippykip]

Whatever "handicapped" is. zmatt was running the "handicapped" eMMC with 103MB/s already today.
Most mobile devices probably use an eMMC that can't even reach 103MB/s as they're cheaper.
How many out there know the eMMC speed of their smartphones?

Also, being able to READ fast from an eMMC is one thing - but whatever program is loading something from the eMMC needs to be able to make use of the data in that fast speed as well.
A video player will probably not being able to decode the video as fast as the eMMC can deliver the data.

When loading a graphics into GIMP, then the CPU will probably have to struggle more with a 100MB file than the eMMC

Additionally, as you showed with the benchmark above, eMMC speed drops a lot (to 30MB/s on the GPD Win) when reading a lot of small files.
That's the access speed of the eMMC, so if I am correct (needs to be tested), that shouldn't be affected by the crippled eMMC anyways, as the bus speed is a lot higher than what the eMMC can provide.

103MB/s?!?!? Holy fuck I'd be perfectly happy with that! I'll still wait for more tests first.

 

[ClockworkCoder]

103MB/s?!?!? Holy fuck I'd be perfectly happy with that! I'll still wait for more tests first.

Agreed. If the speeds are sufficient as-is, then sound like we have no problem? That would be fantastic!

I guess the key is who decides on what's 'acceptable' or not.

From what I gather, I think I'd be happy with slightly slower speeds, and to leave the 'fixes' to the next SoC upgrade. However, I still don't have full understanding of what all the issues are...

 

[Shlee]

As many people like myself are not going to buy a Pyra with a handicapped emmc.

Wow... I cannot tell if this is satire

 

[vcoleiro1]

@Shlee

I meant to say a number of people rather than many (corrected now)

Taking that correction into account, why would it be satire. Everyone is different, and as I mentioned , I'm an emmc only user. I dont use a lot of storage and I use emmc only. So yeah, amongst other things, this would be the straw that broke the camels back for me.

 

[Shlee]

So.. 103MB/s is horrible.. what about 105Mb/s? Where is the line? Why would you care about an unnoticeable issue? like seriously, if you're streaming 4Kp60 video, that's like 4 MB/s

Since when did you ever download anything at 100MB/s... I feel like you're forgetting the carry the one

If it was 10Mb/s sure... but 100? that's fine.. the higher the better but it's not going to bottleneck much

 

[vcoleiro1]

@Shlee

I didn't say it was horrible. I said it was the straw that breaks the camels back for me
Yes that maybe 33% speed difference loading apps/data means something to me. And no I don't plan to watch 4K video on it.

 

[Shlee]

This is why community engagement is considered a bad idea by big business

plus, I'm sure the team will fix whatever problems you're having with or without you.

 

[PowerGod]

Yeah, @vcoleiro1 you are an evil person, go away ! ;P

Without some real-use comparisons all these numbers are brain-capping me (and maybe others too).

Anyway I think it is important to know what will be done for the next batch. (At least because people here deserves something to discuss !! )

 

[vcoleiro1]

This is why community engagement is considered a bad idea by big business

plus, I'm sure the team will fix whatever problems you're having with or without you.

That's wonderful, when can they come and fix my house?

 

[Kippykip]

That's wonderful, when can they come and fix my house?

What's the error message that appears in your houses terminal?

 

[Shlee]

works in my home. #wontfix

 

[Swordfish II]

@ED

I think the most important thing is the answer to the question asked. Is the issue going to be fixed for the next and future batches? If yes , then no problems

I get the feeling the answer is no?

To answer your question, yes, if the max seq speed was restricted to 103MB/s it would put me off. I'm a emmc user only. So a 33% or so speed reduction for seq reads is a put off for me.

How would that affect you in real actual usage? I bet the phone or computer you typed this post on doesn't transfer 103MB/s.

You and quite a few people are being ridiculous

 

[Silent-Hunter]

103? Holy cats, that's not even broken. The rest of the system likely can't even process faster than that anyway!

 

[CommanderB]

103 MB/s should not limit anything! The 4k random access is more relevant for the subjective performance anyway, so it is more than good enough!

Gesendet von meinem SM-N9005 mit Tapatalk

 

[TrashyMG]

103MB/s is still ~90MB/s less than it should run, we'll see how it works when a prototype CPU board is modified disabling the mux.

 

[Kippykip]

103MB/s is still ~90MB/s less than it should run, we'll see how it works when a prototype CPU board is modified disabling the mux.

Yeah that's what I'm gonna wait for, but too be honest I think CPU will bottleneck the majority of what's left but lets just see what happens

 

[EvilDragon]

103MB/s is still ~90MB/s less than it should run, we'll see how it works when a prototype CPU board is modified disabling the mux.

Yes, that's true. Those are all theoretical figures though. I can, honestly, not imagine a situation in normal usage where any program would slow down because of that.
Unless your hobby is to constantly copy large files to the eMMC back and forth.

The speed difference when copying a full DVD (4.7GB) onto the eMMC would be 45 seconds (crippled) compared to 25 seconds (full speed).
Though I wonder from what source you would copy it from... you would need something where you can read 192MB/s as well.

 

[EvilDragon]

@Shlee

I didn't say it was horrible. I said it was the straw that breaks the camels back for me
Yes that maybe 33% speed difference loading apps/data means something to me. And no I don't plan to watch 4K video on it.

You would care about apps.
Okay. FireFox is about 130MB installed, LibreOffice about 400MB.

Both probably don't load EVERYTHING when started, but that would (theoretically!) mean that the startup-times of FireFox would be 1,2s vs 0,8s and with LibreOffice it would be 3,8s vs 2,1s.

That's only theoretical, as the OS is doing a lot more other things as well, and data needs to be processed, etc.
Starting LibreOffice needs a lot longer on my GPD Win than it does on my Pandora... I have no idea what Windows is doing when you run a program, but starting games and apps feels a LOT faster on my Pandora than on my GPD Win. Once started, they run fine, but starting takes a while.

But even if in theory it could be started without data processing, the difference for loading an app would be minimal (for most apps approx. 0,5 - 1,3s).
You either run 20 apps per minute or are really, REALLY impatient.