DBH
Active Member
Samsung have already developed a 800x400 res 2.9" screen so I think a native 800x640 3.5" screen would be possible.
EDIT: Yeh I mean't 800x600
EDIT: Yeh I mean't 800x600
The Next Gp*x Revision
- Thread starter sam fisher
- Start date
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
Thats a weird aspect, 4:3 would be 800*600. you just sugested 4:3.2, or put another way 20:16, which put another way is 5:4 :S
Last edited by a moderator:
Guyfawkes
Certified Idiot :)
320x240 or 640x480 decent normal screen (no widescreen bollocks on handhelds please), a single 400Mhz+ CPU with acceleration (forget about dual CPU, more grief than its worth).
For memory I would say at least 128MB (256MB would be ideal) and should support SD and USB host. A decent D-Pad and the usual 6 buttons + start and select, volume etc.
I would also like to see half decent speakers (GP2X ones are crap) and integrated WiFi. Battery should be Li-On, AA wont cut it now.
I like linux on an handheld, providing its done properly from the start (unlike GP2X) it should work great. So linux as the OS. Also, if you want a decent media player pay someone to port TCPMP or MPlayer properly to it
I am not sure how much the above would cost but the prices some people are saying just look too expensive at £300-£400. I would say £200-£300 would be much better for a system that basically doesnt have a mass market and is homebrew driven.
For memory I would say at least 128MB (256MB would be ideal) and should support SD and USB host. A decent D-Pad and the usual 6 buttons + start and select, volume etc.
I would also like to see half decent speakers (GP2X ones are crap) and integrated WiFi. Battery should be Li-On, AA wont cut it now.
I like linux on an handheld, providing its done properly from the start (unlike GP2X) it should work great. So linux as the OS. Also, if you want a decent media player pay someone to port TCPMP or MPlayer properly to it
I am not sure how much the above would cost but the prices some people are saying just look too expensive at £300-£400. I would say £200-£300 would be much better for a system that basically doesnt have a mass market and is homebrew driven.
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
Again, the I.MX31 SoC is looking like the sort of thing people would prefer.
krosfyah
Syntax Error
Damn, that's still around $500.. I just don't see a big enough market for such a device. The specs sound great but unless it comes in at around the same price mark as the GP2x I think most people will give it a miss.
Guyfawkes
Certified Idiot :)
The gp2x is currently around £125 so an extra £80 to £180 (at highest price) isn't that bad, £200 would be ideal. Like I said I don't know anything about costs to build a console, for all I know my suggestions could be sold at £150 by the time its made as prices will be cheaper.
just reading up on the i.MX31 and i.MX31L as sam keeps mentioning it looks very nice, would be perfect for a new gp2x. runs at 532MHz to 665MHz, has 2D/3D graphics acceleration supporting OpenGL, on-chip display/TV controllers and built in usb interface amongst much more.
just reading up on the i.MX31 and i.MX31L as sam keeps mentioning it
looks very nice, would be perfect for a new gp2x. runs at 532MHz to 665MHz, has 2D/3D graphics acceleration supporting OpenGL, on-chip display/TV controllers and built in usb interface amongst much more.Epicenter
Well-Known Member
There isn't any logical reason an iMX31 based handheld would cost anywhere near $500. It should come in well below $300, maybe MUCH lower. An 800x600 screen is lunacy however.. 640x480 is 'pushing it'.
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
I think 320*240 would be enough, maybe if its almost, or is, 2009 when launched then 640*480 would be about right?
320*240 is more than adequate.
What would be nice is multiple ez80 cpu's onto a board.
They are updates versions of the z80 but are 32bit and run at 150mhz.
Highly customizable so you could just have a lot of those for video, sound, logic, ai, 3d, blitting, ...
What would be nice is multiple ez80 cpu's onto a board.
They are updates versions of the z80 but are 32bit and run at 150mhz.
Highly customizable so you could just have a lot of those for video, sound, logic, ai, 3d, blitting, ...
Eh if we give it a few years it'll be cheaper. I reckon we've at least got another two years before the Gp2x really becomes stale - though probably less if people keep running around stuffing PSPs under the devs' noses. They're bound to give in to the temptation of more power.
Btw after having a closer look at the snapdragon, it doesn't look so attractive. It claims to have 3d capabilities, but I don't see mention of a 3d accelerator - in other words, they must be thinking software rendering. It looks like a horribly inappropriate power guzzler. Perhaps what Craig was thinking of - according to Epicenter?
Also I only was thinking of the Gp2x in terms of an amateur programmer's/linux enthusiast's/fiddler's toy. I don't see it as a commercially viable games platform. It's not a competitor to DS/PSP and it's not something I would expect to make a living out of developing games for. It's a niche thing. It's for people who like messing around with things, or can't afford a PSP, or are very naive.
Re the screen, I would agree with either 320 or 640 4:3 res. 4:3 is the most versatile ratio. Most people prefer bars top and bottom than at the sides. Its to do with your field of vision, its wider than tall (also an argument for everything being widescreen, except everything isn't, so we come to were the black bars are best placed).
Last edited by a moderator:
ldesnogu
Well-Known Member
Hum, what is that ARM rock-solid platform you're speaking of? ARM does not design SoCs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes we could go the route of fully embracing a multi core architecture, with added benefits of increased battery life, one could stick with AA cells then, and it would be highly flexible. On the negative side, it could make development a bit more difficult. However that is the future of computer architecture, and programmers, including myself(at least thats what my degree course suggests I will be upon completion) will have to learn how to deal with it. It could make the Gp*x a very educational device. Not so good for instant gratification though.
Last edited by a moderator:
gmiller1018
Member
He did say "major Soc makers" not ARM.
Last edited by a moderator:
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
He's referring to the i.MX31, a very nice looking SoC.
I don't think a multi core system full of Z80's in a good idea...
I don't think a multi core system full of Z80's in a good idea...
Mmm 4 z80's for the power consumption of one 300mhz processor (very very roughly) - you know you want to...
No I don't think it would sell at all... Maybe in five years time... I'm thinking and array of 10 or so....
Edit; or is it a cube law??
Edit again; Nope the power consumption is directly proportional to clock frequency, but the relation ship between voltage and power consumption of a cpu is a square law. So this comparison only holds true if the z80 requires half the voltage of the 300mhz cpu approximately.
Last edited by a moderator:
ldesnogu
Well-Known Member
That's not how I read it.
Granted I am not a native English speaker
Anyway, what ARM designs is a set of IP that use a common bus (AXI aka AMBA 3) and a common architecture for CPUs.
Then SoC designers are free to do what they want out of these IP blocks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Epicenter
Well-Known Member
Yes, ARM develops the cores and bus architectures as 'IP standards' and then SoC makers like Freescale/Motorola, Texas Instruments, Samsung license the technology to build their chips... that is what I meant.
32-bit z80??? I can't find one.. Does such a thing really exist?? Not done by Zilog anyway. Most serious thing appears to be this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_eZ80
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_eZ80
Epicenter
Well-Known Member
If it lives up to the Z80 Legacy, it'll be very easy to program in ASM for, but be appallingly slow for its clockrate. As in, probably 30% as fast as anything else on the market with the same clock speed. If there's one thing I would NOT use as a CPU in a modern console, it's a Z80. I'm sure it is far from the most low-power solution available, either. :rolleyes:
I'm sure it is far from the most low-power solution available, either. :rolleyes:
sam fisher
Well-Known Member
I thought ARM's have very low power consumption anyway.... also I think they are probably better, also if people don't want a dual core arm machine, but one "big" CPU, I doubt they'll want 10 Z80s....Mmm 4 z80's for the power consumption of one 300mhz processor (very very roughly) - you know you want to...
No I don't think it would sell at all... Maybe in five years time... I'm thinking and array of 10 or so....
Edit; or is it a cube law??
Edit again; Nope the power consumption is directly proportional to clock frequency, but the relation ship between voltage and power consumption of a cpu is a square law. So this comparison only holds true if the z80 requires half the voltage of the 300mhz cpu approximately.
Last edited by a moderator:
