Active Topics
-
Camera phone competition March 2023 "Endless" (35)
to General by Maemish - 2 days, 17 hrs ago -
TLS 1.2 for N9 is ready (28)
to MeeGo / Harmattan by smartblu9 - 2 days, 18 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (3)
to Community by torsen - 3 days, 10 hrs ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (11)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 4 days, 7 hrs ago -
Introducing ubiboot N9 (multiboot OS loader) (1,393)
to Alternatives by smatkovi - 5 days, 14 hrs ago - more...
|
2007-11-18
, 08:59
|
|
Posts: 550 |
Thanked: 110 times |
Joined on Aug 2006
|
#2
|
If you are having speed/ui fluidity issues, I highly recommend turning off the rss reader, or at least its scrolling features.
As far as the additional clock cycles not making an apparent difference in video playback, I have heard multiple times from the Mplayer developers that the video subsystem on the N800 has some serious limitations such that video playback is constained by that fact, rather than the CPU being the limiting factor. In fact, the 770, the N800's predecessor had a better video subsystem. The N810 is almost identical to the N800 in terms of hardware internals, so there is no reason to expect that there will be much improvement in that area. I am sure the MPlayer folks are hard at work squeezing every bit of performance out of those additional clock cycles that they can, but I don't expect to be play high resolution XVID movies on my N8xx anytime soon.
I am interested in the idea of a overclocking system tray applet which would allow one to situationally increase/decrease the max clock rate. I can imagine this would be of much use when one has an external source of power and using an app which is CPU limited (Quake 2 anyone?) and correspondingly one could decrease the clock rate for better battery life when using the N8xx as a book reader or other undemanding task.
As far as the additional clock cycles not making an apparent difference in video playback, I have heard multiple times from the Mplayer developers that the video subsystem on the N800 has some serious limitations such that video playback is constained by that fact, rather than the CPU being the limiting factor. In fact, the 770, the N800's predecessor had a better video subsystem. The N810 is almost identical to the N800 in terms of hardware internals, so there is no reason to expect that there will be much improvement in that area. I am sure the MPlayer folks are hard at work squeezing every bit of performance out of those additional clock cycles that they can, but I don't expect to be play high resolution XVID movies on my N8xx anytime soon.
I am interested in the idea of a overclocking system tray applet which would allow one to situationally increase/decrease the max clock rate. I can imagine this would be of much use when one has an external source of power and using an app which is CPU limited (Quake 2 anyone?) and correspondingly one could decrease the clock rate for better battery life when using the N8xx as a book reader or other undemanding task.
 |
|
2007-11-18
, 09:04
|
|
Posts: 5,478 |
Thanked: 5,222 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ St. Petersburg, FL
|
#3
|
Originally Posted by Rocketman
The idea behind CPU throttling here is that it's entirely transparent to the user. If the system needs more power, its given more power, if it doesn't, the CPU is throttled back (as with ebook reading). Adding a control for this behavior isn't really a good UI decision. I can understand wanting to have it prefer battery life, but things are much cleaner if we don't burden the user with this sort of decision making. Check out the PDF on maemo.org regarding power saving in OS2008 for more detail on the subject.
I am interested in the idea of a overclocking system tray applet which would allow one to situationally increase/decrease the max clock rate. I can imagine this would be of much use when one has an external source of power and using an app which is CPU limited (Quake 2 anyone?) and correspondingly one could decrease the clock rate for better battery life when using the N8xx as a book reader or other undemanding task.
 |
|
2007-11-18
, 09:11
|
|
Posts: 832 |
Thanked: 75 times |
Joined on Dec 2005
@ Phoenix, AZ
|
#4
|
Turn off the RSS reader and other unused toys, plus wait and see how the N800 official image actually performs. I am fortunate enough to have both devices here so will do side-by-side tests.
|
|
2007-11-18
, 09:23
|
|
Posts: 465 |
Thanked: 149 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by GeneralAntilles
Unless it needs more than 400MHz!
If the system needs more power, its given more power
I wonder if they'll add support for higher clocks in the future. It sounds like the CPU supports up to 1GHz, I'd love to see that, even if I did have to plug in the AC.
|
|
2007-11-18
, 09:24
|
|
Posts: 18 |
Thanked: 3 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by thoughtfix
Yes, that would be interesting to see. Although I guess you need three devices to do a proper comparison
Turn off the RSS reader and other unused toys, plus wait and see how the N800 official image actually performs. I am fortunate enough to have both devices here so will do side-by-side tests.
 |
|
2007-11-18
, 11:54
|
|
Posts: 198 |
Thanked: 273 times |
Joined on Jan 2006
@ Helsinki, Finland
|
#7
|
Originally Posted by dblank
Then you are out of luck.
Unless it needs more than 400MHz!
Originally Posted by dblank
Where did you get this information from? We are already using speed-binned processors to get 400MHz and I'm not aware of TI providing any higher option.
I wonder if they'll add support for higher clocks in the future. It sounds like the CPU supports up to 1GHz, I'd love to see that, even if I did have to plug in the AC.
|
|
2007-11-18
, 12:50
|
|
Posts: 631 |
Thanked: 1,123 times |
Joined on Sep 2005
@ Helsinki
|
#8
|
Originally Posted by RedMist
Since this seems to be public information already, in slide 15:
Firstly, I understand that upgrading the firmware in the N800 increases the speed of the CPU. I don't understand why Nokia did not set the speed to 400mhz in the first place, rather than limit it to 320mhz. Also, it begs the questions.. is it is possible to run OS2007 @ 400mhz, or even OS2008 at (say) 480mhz. (I'm assuming clock frequency is software selectable for sake of argument, I don't know if it's a FSB multiplier, or anything else - I'm not a hardware guy!)
Any thoughts?
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ppt-downloa...tablets565.pdf
The CPU and DSP speeds are (effectively) tied together. A faster CPU speed drops the available DSP speed. So you would see in some DSP heavy applications the CPU speed going back to 330mhz.
Anyway, in general I do think you can feel the speed improvement. A difference in certain feature speeds, for instance zooming in the browser, can be attributed also to the new open browser engine compared to the previous Opera one.
Anyway, OMAP2420 has definite maximums on its speed.
| The Following User Says Thank You to ragnar For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2007-11-18
, 14:22
|
|
Posts: 503 |
Thanked: 267 times |
Joined on Jul 2006
@ Helsinki
|
#9
|
Originally Posted by Rocketman
Well, I doubt you have heard exactly this information directly from me, more likely that was just someone's exaggeration or (mis)interpretation
As far as the additional clock cycles not making an apparent difference in video playback, I have heard multiple times from the Mplayer developers that the video subsystem on the N800 has some serious limitations such that video playback is constained by that fact, rather than the CPU being the limiting factor.
Below is my old explanation to somebody who asked a similar question (whether video bandwidth is a major problem) taken from maemo-developers mailing list:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/list...711;list=maemo
"There is one important thing to note. Screen updates are asynchronous and
are performed simultaneously with CPU doing some other useful things at
the same time. Screen updates do not introduce any overhead or affect
performance (at least I did not notice any such effect). So insanely boosting
graphics bus performance will not provide any improvements at all once it is
capable to sustain acceptable framerate. And what is acceptable depends
on applications. Video may require higher framerate, but it is both high
resolution and high framerate movies that may exceed graphics bus
capabilities, in this case video will be still played (if cpu is fast enough
to decode it, that's another story) but with some frames skipped and
many people will not even notice any problems. Quite a lot of people
are even satistied with 15fps transcoded video, so getting maybe 20-25fps
(random guess) on some videos instead of 30fps is not so bad. "
To sum everything up. N800 (and probably N810) has slower graphics bus than Nokia 770, but that is just one extra limiting factor (which did not exist on Nokia 770) to take into account in addition to many others. Initial release of OS2007 firmware had inefficient code in the kernel framebuffer driver which resulted in hitting this limitation for any video, no matter what resolution it had:
"On N800 (OS2007 2.2006.51-6), every YUV screen update (OMAPFB_COLOR_YUY422)
takes about 41ms without tearsync enabled and 41-58ms with tearsync. It does
not matter what video resolution we try to watch, the result is the same."
That's why the problem with the graphics bus speed was immediately spotted and video playback was not very enjoyable running initial revision of OS2007 firmware .
Later firmware releases got framebuffer driver fixed and now we will hit graphics bus throughput limitation only on very high resolution videos (close to 800x480) and with tearsync enabled. CPU performance becomes much more severe bottleneck even at lower resolutions.
 |
|
2007-11-18
, 16:17
|
|
Posts: 469 |
Thanked: 88 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ Montana
|
#10
|
Originally Posted by Serge
Any chance you could explain the last sentence a bit more? I'm not sure I understand.
..... Later firmware releases got framebuffer driver fixed and now we will hit graphics bus throughput limitation only on very high resolution videos (close to 800x480) and with tearsync enabled. CPU performance becomes much more severe bottleneck even at lower resolutions.
Are you saying that now that the framebuffer driver is fixed, the CPU become the limiting factor most of the time? Even on low resolution video (ie. 320x240)
But the real reason for this post is to say that the zoom function on my N800@OS2008 now appears to be slower than it was on OS2007. So I'm not even sure that it really is running at 400Mhz anyway. Everything else is just as quick, and so speed differences are not noticable.
Flash movies (Youtube) seem to run much faster, but that maybe the flash 9 update. But ordrinary movies seem to run about the same speed.
Maybe I am expecting too much from a 25% speed increase?
Any thoughts?
( BTW, I'm Rob, how do you do? )