10-21-2003, 03:30 AM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
The Register Reviews The Asus A620BT
The Register has written up a nice little review of the Asus A620BT -- the same device as the A620 mentioned before, but with Bluetooth. Overall, they like it, although they lamented the software bundle and nonremovable battery.
One statistic struck me as worth discussion: the A620 and its Bluetooth cousin are known to be amongst the fastest WM2003 units. But why? I think this chart from The Register's review will give you a clue. 
8O Anyone have a clue what they did to the graphics chipset in this unit? Does anyone own one they'd like to share their comments on?
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 04:21 AM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 541
|
|
From everything I hear, it's still using the XScale LCD controller.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 04:29 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 144
|
|
Yup, there is no dedicated graphics chipset, that's why it's so fast.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 04:35 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 36
|
|
How much are these bad boys I might have to get one
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 04:53 AM
|
|
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 602
|
|
FYI: For all the Calgary and Area members, I was just checking out Asus's website and checked the list of resellers of this unit and found out Memory Express carries it (non-BT version) and the price is good ($469.95). I think I will have to swing by there on Wednesday and check it out.
:wink:
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 05:07 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
|
If the LCD controller is so fast, why use a crappy graphics chip? (ie MediaQ)
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 05:43 AM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 51
|
|
I pre-ordered mine from PROPortable (www.proportable.com) here in the USA. I received it last Thursday and have had trouble putting it down ever since.
The reason I got it? It's an almost perfect gaming device. The only way they could have improved it would have been to put the d-pad on the left and the buttons on the right, like the old Casio E-series. The d-pad is round, like it should be (curse HP for making trendy oval d-pads and thus encouraging other OEMs to do the same thing through their popularity.) The screen is very nice, as the review mentions. It's definitely the smallest CF device out there.
Any other gamers out there looking to upgrade their old Casio E-series device should definitely take a look at this. I went from an overclocked E-125 to this, and it not only performs better than other PPC 2003 devices (perfect for emulation), it's also familiar enough to the shape and general layout of the E-series that you won't be uncomfortable. It lacks a jog dial, which I thought I would miss, but I haven't. :wink: Incidentally, I heard that ASUS actually manufactured many of the old Casio devices. If that's true then I expect the same sort of quality from this device, and I must say I'm very impressed so far.
The extra ROM space on the A620BT means you have a free 32M 'flash disk' on the device. Handy. 
Ok, now I'm going to mention Bluetooth, and I'm hoping I don't start another holy war here... As an experiment, I decided to leave the sync cradle in the box and try to use BT from the beginning. It's still there. I've been charging directly with the power supply, but all my syncing and surfing has been done with BT. It was actually quite easy to set up, and although I didn't clock myself, I'd say I had it up and running in about 15 minutes. It was even easier when I set it up at work, since I had done it once before. For reference, I bought an IOGear GBU301 USB adaptor. Basically, I installed the software on the PC, modified the few settings on the A620BT, modified the settings on the PC, and then initiated the connection via the A620BT. I went through the list, trying all the various connection menthods and creating the shortcuts to them for future use (serial port, file transfer, network access, and finally Activesync.) I waited to try Activesync until the very end, simply because I was afraid of the horror stories that I had read. It was as simple as setting the COM port on the PC to the corrcet virtual COM port that the IOGear was listening to, and I initiated the connection from the ASUS620BT without a hitch.
I didn't quite know what I would use the BT for, but now I'm sold on it. I don't have a wireless network at home, but syncing without cables it very cool. The range may not be incredible, but I can easily surf anywhere in my apartment, and in a decent area around my office at work. Using Pocket Controller opens up new possibilities. I spent most of the time installing software on my device while it sat charging in my kitchen (I didn't have easy access to a free outlet in my bedroom.) Nifty.
In short, if you are a gamer you should buy this device.
If you want to run emulators as fast as possible, get this device.
If you don't need wifi, but would like to not have to deal with cables again (except for charging on occassion -- the battery life is great) get this device.
Buy it if you don't want or need SD, but you want to own the smallest, lightest, and fastest CF-only device.
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 07:58 AM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 279
|
|
I wish someone would explain a little more about the MyPal's speed. No external video controller, ergo its graphics are 3x faster? That doesn't make any sense. If the MyPal is faster because of something it doesn't have, what's to prevent someone from flashing a hack to the other X-Scale PPCs to get the same effect?
__________________
iPAQ h3635 => Jornada 548 => Jornada 720 => Jornada 568 => iPAQ h1935 => iPAQ h1940 => Axim x50v
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 08:50 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 318
|
|
My understanding is the Xscale processor that's in the ASUS has a internal graphics controller running at the same speed as the processor.
With other machines (X3 or 2215) the graphics processor is running at the speed of the external bus.
I could be barking up the wrong tree but I pretty sure that why.
Regards,
Daniel
|
| |
|
|
|
10-21-2003, 11:04 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 44
|
|
If you take a look at the Spb benchmark compare table you'll notice the Asus A620 reaches an amazing high performance level in particular in the DDB (Device Dependant Bitmap) BitBlt and in the GAPI (Game API) BitBlt graphics tests.
From the review on www.aximsite.com it appears only the X3 can reach that kind of graphics performance. 
These two tests mainly stress the video buffer bandwidth and latency performance at the lowest level, so there's no need to use any new 2D Gfx accelerator chip to obtain that.
It seems the two manufacturers pretty optimized their video subsystem, however any official additional info would be very much appreciated...
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
