Hx4800 vs Hx4700 Rumor post here

[Registered]

Originally posted by Snakeyes
How about Sis

Hahah, I'm LMAO at the thought of someone calling everyone sis in a tech forum.

[hukuju]

Well here goes, Bro and Sis...... hee hee......

Thank you all for your kind compliments......... we are all humans and let's all try to make this world a better place in our small little ways. : )

Sorry for staying away from the forum but I had been really busy with work that I am trying to get enough time to sleep.

Take care Bro and Sis...... hee hee....... and may our dream pda land on our laps soon.........


Cheerio : )

[Santiago]

Well, the ATI chip on the e800 really is a big difecence while playing videos.

I benchmarked performance of my e800 while playing Road to Perdition (576x240, streamed by wlan) using betaplayer.

On qvga using GAPI:
117.13% of speed, 28.8 fps.
( a very nice speed, no surprice you get decent video performance on your qvga devices with lower quality videos, but we are talking about vga here).

On vga using GAPI:
59.74% of speed, 14.32 fps.
(what? that really sucks, doesn't it? does this mean the e800 sucks at video?, huge drop from qvga)

On vga using ATI Imageon:
149.65% of speed, 35.88 fps.
(No, the e800 have excelent video play!)

As you can see, the ATI chip is really a huge advantage.

Hope this info is usefull.

Hx4800 vs Hx4700, graphic acelerator or no, its your choice.

[Registered]

Originally posted by Santiago
Well, the ATI chip on the e800 really is a big difecence while playing videos.

I benchmarked performance of my e800 while playing Road to Perdition (576x240, streamed by wlan) using betaplayer.

On qvga using GAPI:
117.13% of speed, 28.8 fps.
( a very nice speed, no surprice you get decent video performance on your qvga devices with lower quality videos, but we are talking about vga here).

On vga using GAPI:
59.74% of speed, 14.32 fps.
(what? that really sucks, doesn't it? does this mean the e800 sucks at video?, huge drop from qvga)

On vga using ATI Imageon:
149.65% of speed, 35.88 fps.
(No, the e800 have excelent video play!)

As you can see, the ATI chip is really a huge advantage.

Hope this info is usefull.

Hx4800 vs Hx4700, graphic acelerator or no, its your choice.

You obviously didn't read anything in This Thread . If you're too lazy to browse for it, developers (of both PTV and BetaPlayer) basically explained how the ATI card will be great initially for VGA video playback but will only act as a burden (with its slow buffer speed) later once WMMX optimized versions come out.

[imported_UHF]

Doesn't this thread imply the 4700 has the ATI chip for graphics?


http://discussion.brighthand.com/sho...hreadid=108863

[Santiago]

Originally posted by Registered
You obviously didn't read anything in This Thread . If you're too lazy to browse for it, developers (of both PTV and BetaPlayer) basically explained how the ATI card will be great initially for VGA video playback but will only act as a burden (with its slow buffer speed) later once WMMX optimized versions come out.

First I had read that thread and there's no reason why you should call me lazy. Second, there were no conclusive on what was the performance that wmmx could achieve. Third, im only intend to give an example of what an external graphic acceleration can do for a device, this thread is about the intel's chip that will have higher buffer speed and probably will surpass the deficiencies of the ATI chip, plus 3D. Im not traying to state e800 > hx4700 if that was your concern.

[Registered]

First, I did not call you lazy, I simply said "If you are too lazy" cause I know there are times when I really don't have time to read a page full of info that may or may not be relevant to what I'm about to argue. But hey, since I see you're a little touchy, I guess I know what to do for next time.

My concern was clearly the fact that you called the ATI chip a "huge advantage" when you yourself pointed out that the competition (WMMX) currently has no statistics on performance or lack there-or, when the ATI's low buffer read is known and said to be a great disadvantage at times.

Finally what gave you the impression that this thread was about Intel's chip (other than talk in the earlier debate with me an hukuju)?

[Santiago]

Originally posted by Registered
First, I did not call you lazy, I simply said "If you are too lazy" cause I know there are times when I really don't have time to read a page full of info that may or may not be relevant to what I'm about to argue. But hey, since I see you're a little touchy, I guess I know what to do for next time.

Ok, good.

Originally posted by Registered
My concern was clearly the fact that you called the ATI chip a "huge advantage" when you yourself pointed out that the competition (WMMX) currently has no statistics on performance or lack there-or, when the ATI's low buffer read is known and said to be a great disadvantage at times.

Perhaps i shouldn't had used the word advantage. As I said before, i tried to give an example of what graphic acelerations can do. E800's video performance on vga videos wouldn't be any good without the ATI, not even if the e800 had a little faster prosesor (still pxa263, ok?). For the e800 is a lot better having it over not, on video playback (who cares of WMV?). On a similar way, (and hopefully a lot better way) the 2700G5 will make a diference for future ppcs. Im not comparing WMMX to ATI.

Originally posted by Registered
Finally what gave you the impression that this thread was about Intel's chip (other than talk in the earlier debate with me an hukuju)?

Yeah, the early debate that spawn only up to the page 5.

[Registered]

Originally posted by Santiago
Perhaps i shouldn't had used the word advantage. As I said before, i tried to give an example of what graphic acelerations can do. E800's video performance on vga videos wouldn't be any good without the ATI, not even if the e800 had a little faster prosesor (still pxa263, ok?). For the e800 is a lot better having it over not, on video playback (who cares of WMV?). On a similar way, (and hopefully a lot better way) the 2700G5 will make a diference for future ppcs. Im not comparing WMMX to ATI.

Oh, ok. I just gathered you were, seeing how HP could have chosen to either include the ATI chip or not and I thought you were showing the e800's performance benchmarks for that reason. So I guess you were really showing those benchmarks in the hx4700 forum for no reason ...alright.
I can't wait for a PDA with the 2700G either!

Yeah, the early debate that spawn only up to the page 5.

Yet you still don't see it in the thread title, which I'd assume takes priority...

[imported_UHF]

Originally posted by UHF
Doesn't this thread imply the 4700 has the ATI chip for graphics?


http://discussion.brighthand.com/sho...hreadid=108863