Log in

View Full Version : Clear Speed Revs up your iPAQ 1910


Jason Dunn
01-15-2003, 04:57 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://revolution.cx/speed/speed.htm' target='_blank'>http://revolution.cx/speed/speed.htm</a><br /><br /></div><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/SpeedShotsWhite.gif" /> <br /><br />"Revolutionary Software Front has released a utility for the HP iPAQ 1910 that makes it run up to 50% faster with the tap of a button. Using the advanced performance capabilities of the XScale CPU, Clear Speed boosts application performance from 30-50% in most cases. Multimedia applications enjoy a marked improvement, making games run faster and movies play more smoothly. Opening Contacts, Inbox and Calendar are faster than before and all aspects of the device respond more quickly. Clear Speed is available now for $9.95 from the Revolutionary Software Front website."

EyePAQ
01-15-2003, 05:00 PM
Now if they could just make my 3650 run faster...

T-Will
01-15-2003, 05:03 PM
Now if they could just make my 3650 run faster...

Check here: http://www.jimmysoftware.com/Software/Overclock/

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 05:09 PM
Now if they could just make my 3650 run faster...

We'll be supporting more devices in the future. Not all of them can be made to run faster or slower, and even if they can the difference isn't always noticeable.

merlin
01-15-2003, 05:14 PM
How about the 5455??
Overclocking is cool!! :rock on dude!:

Oliver T
01-15-2003, 05:16 PM
If it is that easy to get the ipaq run faster, why on earth did HP (Compaq) bother releasing it as a 200MHz device ?

Foo Fighter
01-15-2003, 05:17 PM
The performance boost sounds very impressive, but I'm not sure over-clocking this xScale chip is the wisest thing to do. Has testing been done to see if there are any adverse side effects? Like the chip running hotter?

vincentsiaw
01-15-2003, 05:19 PM
ahhha i imagine those hp engineer must be wondering now, what's the point of making it 200mhz if people can modify it in simplistic manner :lol:

PPCWanderer
01-15-2003, 05:22 PM
If it is that easy to get the ipaq run faster, why on earth did HP (Compaq) bother releasing it as a 200MHz device ?

Marketing, why else?

Jimmy Dodd
01-15-2003, 05:23 PM
Is this the same app/hack discussed in http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=65517
? Or is this a different beast entirely?

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 05:25 PM
Answers:

- This is a different utility than the one mentioned on Brighthand. Among other things our version runs faster (check the benchmarks) and keeps working even when you turn the device off and back on.
- I truly believe that HP made a marketing decision.
- It has been tested extensively without problem.

jmulder
01-15-2003, 05:29 PM
If it is that easy to get the ipaq run faster, why on earth did HP (Compaq) bother releasing it as a 200MHz device ?

While I can't say for sure, Foo was probably right when he asked about the chip running hotter. There will probably be a hit to battery life as well.

-Jim

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 05:36 PM
Battery life torture test: run time with backlight on lowest setting (not off), no auto-dim and the MPEG TV sample moving running in a loop continuously (h:m):

Stock 1910: 4:40
1910 with Clear Speed: 4:10

The chip may run hotter but it isn't noticeable. Remember this is the exact same PXA 250 CPU that is used in the 400 mhz 5450.

VO Benchmark results on our site.

dbrahms
01-15-2003, 05:57 PM
but...i hear that even the 400mhz xscale ipaqs still run at 200mhz (approx) as the application/OS is not coded to take advantage of the higher speeds...something like that....so, even by forcing the proc to run at 300mhz, are the apps using the speed? It's like the MMX deal all over again....

has anyone evaluated the frame rates and/or dropped frames of an Mpeg? What abotu WMP performance...

this could be a scham

van_mierlo
01-15-2003, 06:02 PM
How about the 5455??
Overclocking is cool!! :rock on dude!:

This will work with all ipaq's with a register editor

-Browse to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMGDIGLYPHCACHE and change the "limit" value to:
-4096 : Your screen will be slower but will use less memory
-8192 : Standard value on the PPC
-16384: Faster speed but more memory is being used (Tweaks2k gives you this option)
-32768: Dutch PocketPC-Club test value, super faster screen!

Higher values won't make a difference

dbrahms
01-15-2003, 06:05 PM
How about the 5455??
Overclocking is cool!! :rock on dude!:

This will work with all ipaq's with a register editor

-Browse to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMGDIGLYPHCACHE and change the "limit" value to:
-4096 : Your screen will be slower but will use less memory
-8192 : Standard value on the PPC
-16384: Faster speed but more memory is being used (Tweaks2k gives you this option)
-32768: Dutch PocketPC-Club test value, super faster screen!

Higher values won't make a difference

SO ALL THIS APP DOES IS MODIFY THE REGISTRY TO DIFFERENT VALUES AS YOU LISTED PREVIOUSLY???

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 06:05 PM
but...i hear that even the 400mhz xscale ipaqs still run at 200mhz (approx) as the application/OS is not coded to take advantage of the higher speeds...something like that....so, even by forcing the proc to run at 300mhz, are the apps using the speed? It's like the MMX deal all over again....

has anyone evaluated the frame rates and/or dropped frames of an Mpeg? What abotu WMP performance...

this could be a scham

Hmmm...I'm not sure I understand your post. It appears completely incorrect.

The 400 mhz devices run at 400 mhz.
The 300 mhz devices run at 300 mhz.
The 200 mhz devices run at 200 mhz.

MMX machines also run at the mhz listed.

Here are the VO Benchmark results:

CPU FPU Memmv BitBlt
Normal 13.6 6.3 .31 42
Clear Speed 19.9 9.4 .45 61

dbrahms
01-15-2003, 06:08 PM
but...i hear that even the 400mhz xscale ipaqs still run at 200mhz (approx) as the application/OS is not coded to take advantage of the higher speeds...something like that....so, even by forcing the proc to run at 300mhz, are the apps using the speed? It's like the MMX deal all over again....

has anyone evaluated the frame rates and/or dropped frames of an Mpeg? What abotu WMP performance...

this could be a scham

Hmmm...I'm not sure I understand your post. It appears completely incorrect.

The 400 mhz devices run at 400 mhz.
The 300 mhz devices run at 300 mhz.
The 200 mhz devices run at 200 mhz.

MMX machines also run at the mhz listed.

Here are the VO Benchmark results:

CPU FPU Memmv BitBlt
Normal 13.6 6.3 .31 42
Clear Speed 19.9 9.4 .45 61

ALL I KNOW IS MY 400MHZ IPAQ RUNS SLOWER THAN MY 206MHZ IPAQ...AND EVERYONE IS SAYING IT'S BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE (MEDIA PLAYER, THE O.S. ITSELF) ISNT WRITTEN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE XSCALES HIGHER SPEEDS...SO I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS APP CORRECTS THIS. EVERYONE IS SAYING THAT MICROSOFT NEEDS TO REWRITE THE SOFTWARE TO MAKE USE OF THE XSCALES HIGH SPEEDS...PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS APPLICAITON GETS AROUND THIS.

Gamma Ray
01-15-2003, 06:08 PM
Van_mierlo, is this in addition to the speed gain on the H1910 from unlocking the CPU (revolution)? What registry editor do you recommend?

Dbrahms the issue you speak of has nothing to do with this issue. What you are talking about is the speed difference in two completely different processors. It is a known fact that the Xscale at 400MHz is slower than the StrongArm at 206MHz. The issue here is returning the UNDERCLOCKED Xscale chip in the H1910 (200MHz) to the where it should have been in the first place (300MHz). Even here, this chip will suck next to a StrongArm, but that is another story...

Mike Wagstaff
01-15-2003, 06:23 PM
SO ALL THIS APP DOES IS MODIFY THE REGISTRY TO DIFFERENT VALUES AS YOU LISTED PREVIOUSLY???
No, those registry hacks are for speeding up video access, a completely different issue that applies to all Pocket PC's, not just the 1910.

By the way, you might want to consider turning Caps Lock off when posting messages on the Internet. Typing something entirely in capital letters is regarded as shouting. ;)

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 06:26 PM
ALL I KNOW IS MY 400MHZ IPAQ RUNS SLOWER THAN MY 206MHZ IPAQ...AND EVERYONE IS SAYING IT'S BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE (MEDIA PLAYER, THE O.S. ITSELF) ISNT WRITTEN TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE XSCALES HIGHER SPEEDS...SO I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS APP CORRECTS THIS. EVERYONE IS SAYING THAT MICROSOFT NEEDS TO REWRITE THE SOFTWARE TO MAKE USE OF THE XSCALES HIGH SPEEDS...PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THIS APPLICAITON GETS AROUND THIS.

Clear Speed won't help you anyway since it only works on the iPaq 1910.

There are a variety of issues going on that make your 200 mhz iPaq go slower than your 400 mhz iPaq, but regardless I'm sure it's frustrating.

Clear Speed helps 1910 users get faster performance on software such as games and movie players.

dbrahms
01-15-2003, 06:27 PM
Van_mierlo, is this in addition to the speed gain on the H1910 from unlocking the CPU (revolution)? What registry editor do you recommend?

Dbrahms the issue you speak of has nothing to do with this issue. What you are talking about is the speed difference in two completely different processors. It is a known fact that the Xscale at 400MHz is slower than the StrongArm at 206MHz. The issue here is returning the UNDERCLOCKED Xscale chip in the H1910 (200MHz) to the where it should have been in the first place (300MHz). Even here, this chip will suck next to a StrongArm, but that is another story...

***Understood...But it still seems that ANY XScale chip/speed setting will not run past 200MHz as the software wasnt written to take advantage of XScale speeds...300mhz or 400mhz. I bet the 200mhz xscale performs just the same as my 400mhz due to software limitations...BUT, I'd like to see some frame-rate tests first...I don't see a demo offered on the web site.. Hmmmmmmmm

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 06:30 PM
***Understood...But it still seems that ANY XScale chip/speed setting will not run past 200MHz as the software wasnt written to take advantage of XScale speeds...300mhz or 400mhz. I bet the 200mhz xscale performs just the same as my 400mhz due to software limitations...BUT, I'd like to see some frame-rate tests first...I don't see a demo offered on the web site.. Hmmmmmmmm

That is just total nonsense.

There are benchmarks on the site. There are people using the software. Frame rate counters go up. Games run visibly smoother.

goirish!!
01-15-2003, 06:34 PM
How about the 5455??
Overclocking is cool!! :rock on dude!:

This will work with all ipaq's with a register editor

-Browse to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMGDIGLYPHCACHE and change the "limit" value to:
-4096 : Your screen will be slower but will use less memory
-8192 : Standard value on the PPC
-16384: Faster speed but more memory is being used (Tweaks2k gives you this option)
-32768: Dutch PocketPC-Club test value, super faster screen!

Higher values won't make a difference


I used the vaules you listed on my Axim and it does noticeably speed up the unit, but I too am wondering what, if any, are the adverse affects of doing this??

If it's just memory usage then that's no biggie, I've got plenty, but if it is system damaging I would like to know.

I did a very unscientific experiment by opening PI before and after the value change. It seems to open twice as fast as before!!

dbrahms
01-15-2003, 06:35 PM
fair enough...I'm just having a hard time with this. I hope this is legit and does run better for the sake of the user Community...if so, I'm happy.
I just dont get why HP would forge a device and essentially slow-down its performance...especially if the battery life doesnt vary so much. All in all, I hope this works for everyone and wish you success with your application...

goirish!!
01-15-2003, 06:38 PM
SO ALL THIS APP DOES IS MODIFY THE REGISTRY TO DIFFERENT VALUES AS YOU LISTED PREVIOUSLY???
No, those registry hacks are for speeding up video access, a completely different issue that applies to all Pocket PC's, not just the 1910.

Man you guys are posting fast!! So are there any SYSTEM damaging issues to be concerned with when doing this?? Reason for asking is battery life, memory usage, etc. won't have lasting effects that I would be concerned with.

Thanks!! :D

dbrahms
01-15-2003, 06:40 PM
I think we're all wondering one thing....Will either one of these tweaks make Pocket Media Player suck less? meaning...will it increase performans and not freeze, drop frames etc...?

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 06:45 PM
fair enough...I'm just having a hard time with this. I hope this is legit and does run better for the sake of the user Community...if so, I'm happy.
I just dont get why HP would forge a device and essentially slow-down its performance...especially if the battery life doesnt vary so much. All in all, I hope this works for everyone and wish you success with your application...

Thanks. I know it's hard for consumers to make heads or tails of some of these technical issues, particularly when it flies in the face of common sense.

I could write an article about the various performance issues with Pocket PCs, perhaps I should. I don't fully understand HP's decision myself on the 1910, it's likely a combo of the slightly increased battery life and the fact that their $299 device shouldn't compete with their $699 device.

dbman
01-15-2003, 06:50 PM
In addition to marketing reasons, power issues might be the cause. Since this PDA is so slim, perhaps it was the only way they could give it the desired battery life.

Janak Parekh
01-15-2003, 07:13 PM
fair enough...I'm just having a hard time with this. I hope this is legit and does run better for the sake of the user Community...if so, I'm happy.
I just dont get why HP would forge a device and essentially slow-down its performance...especially if the battery life doesnt vary so much. All in all, I hope this works for everyone and wish you success with your application...
dbrahms, read my post yesterday morning. There appear to be two different XScale processors released to the market: one that can run at 300MHz, and one that can run at 400MHz. The one in the 1910 is the former, but HP underclocked it. This utillity isn't overclocking it per se, it's just scaling up the processor to its maximum rated speed.

As to your problem, that's something different, completely irrelevant of megahertz. It's the fact that the StrongARM and XScale are different beasts, and at this time a 206MHz StrongARM is competitive with faster-clocked XScale processors. MHz doesn't translate directly to speed--it's the frequency of which instructions are executed on a chip. There are a lot of other factors in a handheld which affect speed.

--janak

Deslock
01-15-2003, 07:26 PM
I'm currently running the other 300 MHz program... I'm going to wait full versions of both programs are available before paying for one. I have a few questions:

1) Do PPCs sold to run at up to 300 or 400 MHz automatically adjust their CPU speed according to how the unit is run? If so, does this work well, or do people tend to manually place their PPCs in "turbo" mode or "battery save" mode?

2) Will this program allow for that type of CPU throttling?

3) Is it possible to assign MHz values to different programs so that the device runs at a specific MHz depending on which program is currently in the forefront?

4) If #2 is possible, are there plans to implement that functionality? I had an overclocking program for the Palm that let me do this, and it didn't cost much more $ than what you're asking.

Thanks!

Kaber
01-15-2003, 07:33 PM
I thought the reason that XScale PDA's had lower performance than StrongARM 206Mhz was because of a memory bus bottleneck.

http://www.cewindows.net/commentary/xscale_speed.htm

Ethan
01-15-2003, 07:43 PM
Lots of people are wondering why HP intentionally lowered the 1910's speed. Its simple, really - to create more of a difference between the low and high-end units. Otherwise, there would be less incentive for anyone to purchase a 5450. (Of course there are other benefits too, but the marketing people use MHZ as one tool to sell high-end hardware).

This is not at all unusual. I can think of another example, when Intel first sold its 486sx chip they disabled the floating point processor already in the chip, then sold it for less. Why not just give people the floating point processor for free if its already there? Marketing, as others have said. Its called Crippleware, (as applied to hardware, not software) and the below definitions of the term both contain examples of its use, similar to what we see here with the Ipaq

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/c/crippleware.html

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci862925,00.html

GO-TRIBE
01-15-2003, 07:54 PM
The performance boost sounds very impressive, but I'm not sure over-clocking this xScale chip is the wisest thing to do. Has testing been done to see if there are any adverse side effects? Like the chip running hotter?
I don't think that this is really overclocking. From what other articles and posts have said, Intel makes 2 chips. One that runs anywhere from 100-300 mHz and another that runs from 100-400 mHz. HP/Compaq selected 200 mHz for the iPaq 1910 to improve battery life for the small device with a small battery and super screen (that eats the battery). Many people who use the 1910 for contacts and calendar only might benefit from clocking it down to 100 mHz most of the time. :idea:

Sparkomatic
01-15-2003, 07:57 PM
This will work with all ipaq's with a register editor

-Browse to: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMGDIGLYPHCACHE and change the "limit" value to:
-4096 : Your screen will be slower but will use less memory
-8192 : Standard value on the PPC
-16384: Faster speed but more memory is being used (Tweaks2k gives you this option)
-32768: Dutch PocketPC-Club test value, super faster screen!

Higher values won't make a difference

I went to my registry and see 6710 listed as default. I have a iPAQ 3975. Has anyone with an iPAQ changed their value and what were the effects?

GO-TRIBE
01-15-2003, 07:58 PM
Lots of people are wondering why HP intentionally lowered the 1910's speed. Its simple, really - to create more of a difference between the low and high-end units. Otherwise, there would be less incentive for anyone to purchase a 5450. (Of course there are other benefits too, but the marketing people use MHZ as one tool to sell high-end hardware).
I'm not sure that's true. The 1910 is a Palm killer, and people expect Palms to have good battery life. Agreed? People do not expect good performance from a Palm, so the 1910 already seems plenty faster. Agreed? Then you've got a great battery sucking screen, and a small battery because of size. Agreed? So what's better, short battery life and good performance OR better battery life and a little less performance? When you're going after Palm users (buyers) you need that battery life. :)

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 08:05 PM
I'm currently running the other 300 MHz program... I'm going to wait full versions of both programs are available before paying for one. I have a few questions:

1) Do PPCs sold to run at up to 300 or 400 MHz automatically adjust their CPU speed according to how the unit is run? If so, does this work well, or do people tend to manually place their PPCs in "turbo" mode or "battery save" mode?

2) Will this program allow for that type of CPU throttling?

3) Is it possible to assign MHz values to different programs so that the device runs at a specific MHz depending on which program is currently in the forefront?

4) If #2 is possible, are there plans to implement that functionality? I had an overclocking program for the Palm that let me do this, and it didn't cost much more $ than what you're asking.

Thanks!

1 - I doubt it, but I haven't done enough research to make a definitive statement.

2 - Not yet but it is planned for version 1.1

3 - Planned for version 1.1

Wiggin
01-15-2003, 08:07 PM
I went to my registry and see 6710 listed as default. I have a iPAQ 3975. Has anyone with an iPAQ changed their value and what were the effects?
I've switched my reg value to 16384 on my 3850 and have had no adverse effects (that I can tell). If there is a speed improvement, it is minor with the standard apps I am using. I do not use game sw or watch video on the PPC, so it may have a noticeable impact with those. btw, my default was 8192.

Abednego
01-15-2003, 08:14 PM
:roll:I know, some people on this board might crucify me for this thought, but does anybody know whether a Sony NX/NZ PDA could be overclocked this way too? Doesn't it use the 200 MHz XScale Chip as well?
Of course I know, that the program will only run on the pocket pc platform and I am well aware that this forum is about PPCs only.
The thought simply crossed my mind...
taking cover and waiting for the flames :wink:

Sslixtis
01-15-2003, 08:16 PM
dbrahms, read my post yesterday morning. There appear to be two different XScale processors released to the market: one that can run at 300MHz, and one that can run at 400MHz. The one in the 1910 is the former, but HP underclocked it. This utillity isn't overclocking it per se, it's just scaling up the processor to its maximum rated speed.

As to your problem, that's something different, completely irrelevant of megahertz. It's the fact that the StrongARM and XScale are different beasts, and at this time a 206MHz StrongARM is competitive with faster-clocked XScale processors. MHz doesn't translate directly to speed--it's the frequency of which instructions are executed on a chip. There are a lot of other factors in a handheld which affect speed.

--janak

Intel does use two different processors, the PXA210 low power and PXA250 high performance. That said the listed speeds of those chips over at Intel are PXA210 100-200Mhz and PXA250 200-400Mhz. Both the HP 1910 and ViewSonic V35 use the PXA250 chip, same as all the 400Mhz units, so either of those units should be able to run at up to 400Mhz without overheating or damaging the unit in anyway, that was what the chip was designed for after all.

Now you ask why would HP or ViewSonic do that?? That is simple when you look at Marketing, they are artificially creating a low end of the market. By using the PXA250 underclocked they don't have to design for a new chip PXA210, they create a "low end" unit, they don't take sales from the HP 54xx and they save power consumption on their super slim PPC.

As for the difference between Xscale performance and StrongARM performance, I have heard both Bus bottleneck and Software shortcomings. I think it is probably a combination of the two. If you want to try a completely unscientific test try the latest version of Pocket TV Enterprise Edition with an Xscale an watch that baby FLY! After that, I'm sure you'll be more inclined to lean toward the software claims for slower speeds. :wink:

Oh and as for 400Mhz units Auto-Scaling for CPU usage, the Axim X5 400Mhz unit does this. It is under Start>Settings>System>Power>Processor. It seems to Work really well also! You can select Normal 400Mhz, PowerSave 200Mhz, or Auto scales as needed. :lol:

Sslixtis
01-15-2003, 08:29 PM
I know, some people on this board might crucify me for this thought, but does anybody know whether a Sony NX/NZ PDA could be overclocked this way too? Doesn't it use the 200 MHz XScale Chip as well?
Of course I know, that the program will only run on the pocket pc platform and I am well aware that this forum is about PPCs only.
The thought simply crossed my mind...
taking cover and waiting for the flames

Well according to the specs. the NZ has a PXA250 processor as well, so it should be able to run at up to 400Mhz as well ;) Now with Palm who knows what the OS supports though. :?

sponge
01-15-2003, 10:09 PM
Revolution.cx: I've been following your development for a bit, but I'm still not sure, is this technically overclocking, or simply doing something that's not in the OS. ie does it work more like JSOverclock, or the various turbo, powersaving processor modes in many PDAs.

van_mierlo
01-15-2003, 10:29 PM
Any registry edit application will work. Resco 2003 reg edit is my favorite

and so far I didn't have problems with either my 3635 and 5455....it just works great

Janak Parekh
01-15-2003, 10:30 PM
Intel does use two different processors, the PXA210 low power and PXA250 high performance.
Ah, good call. Sorry about that. :oops:

On the other hand, I've read fairly consistent reports that the 200MHz units don't reliably scale up to 400MHz. This is what led people to believe there were two models of the PXA250. I'll investigate a bit further; it must be some other aspect of the designed hardware.

--janak

revolution.cx
01-15-2003, 11:10 PM
Revolution.cx: I've been following your development for a bit, but I'm still not sure, is this technically overclocking, or simply doing something that's not in the OS. ie does it work more like JSOverclock, or the various turbo, powersaving processor modes in many PDAs.

More like the various turbo and powersaving processor modes, less like JSOverclock.

Bob Anderson
01-16-2003, 01:05 AM
Who would have thought that such a small issue would stir up such a controversy/miscommunication/misunderstanding et. al.!

I've seen many people ask the question "Why would HP do this?" (Referring to the fact that they were "scaling-back" the processor speed on the 1910...

Well, if we knew the answer to that along with about 50 zillion questions surrounding Xscale and Intel, we all be pretty smart by now!

I'm sure part of the reasoning had to do with battery power, and another signifiant portion of the decision had to do with market differentiation - kinda like why does GM charge $50k + for a Cadillac Escalade when you can get basically the same thing in the Chevy Tahoe for $33k ??? (OK.. not entirely fair but similar in nature...)

And despite what everyone says, the Xscale will prove to be a better overall chip when the next version of Pocket PC OS comes out. All this talk about memory bottlenecks, etc., has some valid points, but until the chip can run "native" code rather than in some form of compatibility mode, it will always be at a disadvantage when clock speeds are similar.

Paul P
01-16-2003, 01:19 AM
Now you ask why would HP or ViewSonic do that?? That is simple when you look at Marketing, they are artificially creating a low end of the market. By using the PXA250 underclocked they don't have to design for a new chip PXA210, they create a "low end" unit, they don't take sales from the HP 54xx and they save power consumption on their super slim PPC.

I don't know...I haven't seen many threads named "5450 or 1910 - Which one do I get?" The two units are night and day in terms of functionality. Marketing, of course, is of great significance to HP and certainly takes precedence in their decision making, but underclocking the 1910 out of fear of 5450 sales cannibalization is questionable. Consumers have a clear choice, or rather clear price difference, when choosing between the 1910 and 5450. Besides, underclocking the 1910 takes the sales away from the 1910 itself in the midst of other competition out there.

Sslixtis
01-16-2003, 01:20 AM
And despite what everyone says, the Xscale will prove to be a better overall chip when the next version of Pocket PC OS comes out. All this talk about memory bottlenecks, etc., has some valid points, but until the chip can run "native" code rather than in some form of compatibility mode, it will always be at a disadvantage when clock speeds are similar.

AMEN!

Mike Temporale
01-16-2003, 01:33 AM
&lt;rant>All this, plus the SDIO news on the front page.... and I CAN'T GET A 1910 IN CANADA !!! :evil:

Come on and send these puppies up north!! &lt;/rant>

Thomas Foolery
01-16-2003, 01:56 AM
And despite what everyone says, the Xscale will prove to be a better overall chip when the next version of Pocket PC OS comes out. All this talk about memory bottlenecks, etc., has some valid points, but until the chip can run "native" code rather than in some form of compatibility mode, it will always be at a disadvantage when clock speeds are similar.

How is there a "compatibility mode"? XScale isn't emulating ARM instructions - XScale *is* an ARM processor, last I checked, right?

mterlouw
01-16-2003, 01:58 AM
I don't know...I haven't seen many threads named "5450 or 1910 - Which one do I get?" The two units are night and day in terms of functionality. Marketing, of course, is of great significance to HP and certainly takes precedence in their decision making, but underclocking the 1910 out of fear of 5450 sales cannibalization is questionable. Consumers have a clear choice, or rather clear price difference, when choosing between the 1910 and 5450. Besides, underclocking the 1910 takes the sales away from the 1910 itself in the midst of other competition out there.You just answered your own question (well it wasn't really a question). It's partly because of the processor speed difference that the two devices are so different spec-wise and do not compete with each other. But when you start blurring the line between the two, you will sell many more cheaper units than top-of-the-line ones. And I have no doubt that almost anyone who would spend $700 on a 5450 has already asked himself/herself "Which one do I get?". Without comparing features there is no way to justify the higher cost.

Paul P
01-16-2003, 04:36 AM
It's partly because of the processor speed difference that the two devices are so different spec-wise and do not compete with each other. But when you start blurring the line between the two, you will sell many more cheaper units than top-of-the-line ones. And I have no doubt that almost anyone who would spend $700 on a 5450 has already asked himself/herself "Which one do I get?". Without comparing features there is no way to justify the higher cost.

The 'blurring' aspect is what I am questioning here I guess. There is no blurring as I see it. You have something selling for $300 and something else for $700. There is a clear distinction here. When all is said and done, only one specification (albeit a significant one) remains. If someone buys a 1910 over a 5450, then they were going to do so regardless because one model does not (cannot) replace the other. But you either buy one or the other...surely a 5450 buyer would realize that distinction.

yunez
01-16-2003, 05:54 AM
How is there a "compatibility mode"? XScale isn't emulating ARM instructions - XScale *is* an ARM processor, last I checked, right?

Thats right, its not "compatibility mode" or emulation by any means. Its simply a matter of optimizing the OS to take advantage of a processor's strengths, just like you can optimize desktop programs for specific processors.

Bob Anderson
01-16-2003, 06:10 AM
How is there a "compatibility mode"? XScale isn't emulating ARM instructions - XScale *is* an ARM processor, last I checked, right?

Thats right, its not "compatibility mode" or emulation by any means. Its simply a matter of optimizing the OS to take advantage of a processor's strengths, just like you can optimize desktop programs for specific processors.

OK... so you guys got me... it's not "compatibility mode"... I guess I tried to oversimplify... but my point is... until the raw O/S code is written to take advantage of what XScale is "built to do" efficiently, it won't be fair to compare it to the 206 Mhz StrongARM which PPC is built for/around.

(I should have known better than to oversimplify on PPC Thoughts!)

Charles Pickrell
01-16-2003, 06:15 AM
I've read fairly consistent reports that the 200MHz units don't reliably scale up to 400MHz. This is what led people to believe there were two models of the PXA250. I'll investigate a bit further; it must be some other aspect of the designed hardware.

--janak

It is common for many processors in a manufacturing run to have varying max speeds due to variances in build quality. Intel probably tests the ARM chips to see at which speed they run at most reliably. So I would guess that chips sold at a 200MHz clock speed have subtle variances in quality that make them less reliable at 300 or 400 MHz.

Sslixtis
01-16-2003, 06:49 AM
It is common for many processors in a manufacturing run to have varying max speeds due to variances in build quality. Intel probably tests the ARM chips to see at which speed they run at most reliably. So I would guess that chips sold at a 200MHz clock speed have subtle variances in quality that make them less reliable at 300 or 400 MHz.

This is true of Most processors, however the PXA250 is Designed to Scale from 200-400Mhz, hence the name Xscale. The Chips that Bin out at lower speeds are rated as PXA210 processors and scale from 100-200Mhz. So there will be no PXA250 processors that can't make 400Mhz, if they can't get to the 400Mhz mark then they are rated as PXA210 processors. :wink: Now, they may have actually disabled some features and sold them at a reduced price, at HPs request, wouldn't surprise me.

PXA210 chips sell for $19.00 per 1000
PXA250 chips sell for $32.00 per 1000
HP may have said what can we get for $25 :wink:

Hope this helps.

T-Will
01-16-2003, 08:07 AM
Revolution.cx, any idea how soon you'll be able to get the 1910 running at 100 MHz? This would be great to conserve battery when listening to music and/or reading eBooks!

Ekkie Tepsupornchai
01-16-2003, 12:12 PM
The performance boost sounds very impressive, but I'm not sure over-clocking this xScale chip is the wisest thing to do. Has testing been done to see if there are any adverse side effects? Like the chip running hotter?
I don't think that this is really overclocking. From what other articles and posts have said, Intel makes 2 chips. One that runs anywhere from 100-300 mHz and another that runs from 100-400 mHz.
Well, the chip does run slightly hotter at higher mHz... that of course is just the nature of computer processors, but I do believe Foo's point might be that HP may have built the unit to handle the heat of a 200mHz processor and not necessarily a 300mHz processor. Only time will tell if this is truly an issue or not, but right now, there doesn't appear to be one.

Jason Dunn
01-16-2003, 06:03 PM
How is there a "compatibility mode"? XScale isn't emulating ARM instructions - XScale *is* an ARM processor, last I checked, right?

Thats right, its not "compatibility mode" or emulation by any means. Its simply a matter of optimizing the OS to take advantage of a processor's strengths, just like you can optimize desktop programs for specific processors.

OK... so you guys got me... it's not "compatibility mode"... I guess I tried to oversimplify... but my point is... until the raw O/S code is written to take advantage of what XScale is "built to do" efficiently, it won't be fair to compare it to the 206 Mhz StrongARM which PPC is built for/around.

(I should have known better than to oversimplify on PPC Thoughts!)

I don't really agree with this, and it's turning into a bit of an urban myth. I'm no developer, but from everything I've read, the the ARM5 instructions that the Xscale adds are mostly centered around multimedia (similar to MMX), so even if Microsoft were to re-write the OS to be ARM5 optimized, we wouldn't see an across the board speed boost. On an APPLICATION level, these optimizations do seem to help - hence the Xscale version of Pocket TV.

The hardware (bus + memory speed) is the real problem here, not the software. Oh, and it would seem that Intel's execution of ARM4-based instructions is inferior to the StrongARM CPU. This shouldn't surprise anyone - when Intel announced the first first of their 64-bit CPU, it was optimized to execute 64-bit code, and it's 32-bit code execution was SLOWER than a previous generation chip (PIII at the time). Guys, this is what Intel DOES - they release a chip, then it takes a few revisions to get things working properly.

But you sure as heck don't see Microsoft releasing "Windows XP for the Pentium 4", right? So why expect that on the Pocket PC? :lol:

Jonathon Watkins
01-16-2003, 08:13 PM
But you sure as heck don't see Microsoft releasing "Windows XP for the Pentium 4", right? So why expect that on the Pocket PC? :lol:

Becuase some people want the moon on a plate - yesterday! :roll: :lol:

It's the expectation I suppose - 400Mhz SHOULD be quite a bit faster than 200Mhz. Pleople build up expectations and get upset when they don't happen - human nature.

Thomas Foolery
01-17-2003, 05:17 AM
I don't really agree with this, and it's turning into a bit of an urban myth. I'm no developer, but from everything I've read, the the ARM5 instructions that the Xscale adds are mostly centered around multimedia (similar to MMX), so even if Microsoft were to re-write the OS to be ARM5 optimized, we wouldn't see an across the board speed boost. On an APPLICATION level, these optimizations do seem to help - hence the Xscale version of Pocket TV.

The hardware (bus + memory speed) is the real problem here, not the software. Oh, and it would seem that Intel's execution of ARM4-based instructions is inferior to the StrongARM CPU. This shouldn't surprise anyone - when Intel announced the first first of their 64-bit CPU, it was optimized to execute 64-bit code, and it's 32-bit code execution was SLOWER than a previous generation chip (PIII at the time). Guys, this is what Intel DOES - they release a chip, then it takes a few revisions to get things working properly.

But you sure as heck don't see Microsoft releasing "Windows XP for the Pentium 4", right? So why expect that on the Pocket PC? :lol:

"urban myth" is a perfect description!

as for applications being able to be optimized, that seems to be a mixed bag. We've got a database-heavy application on PocketPC that runs 20% slower on XSCale than on the StrongARM chips. The application was taken to the Intel (de)optimization center, and when it came back: 20% slower. still. the off-the-record explanation was that things on Xscale were optimized for things that just didnt help us much, namely being multimedia-focused, gaming, flashy bells and whistles. try moving megs of data around, pay the price.

:?: Does anyone have any info on other non-Intel-based pocketpcs coming along? I had heard a Texas Instruments rumour a while back, any truth to that? :?:

vdospec
02-02-2003, 01:01 AM
I bought this Clear Speed program, and all it did was lock up my unit when I shut off my HP 1910, so when I turned it back on the 1910 had to be HARD REST.

I emailed them about this, and they said that they never had a problem like this and would email me back in a couple of days.

I was not really impressed with that, so they mentione Version 2.0 was in test, and I mentioned that I would like to try that then, it was better than waiting days for them to get back to me, the reason was'nt checking it out either, it was they were just plain busy they said.

So I they said ok, then never got back to me, so then I wrote them for a refund, then they asked me if I wanted the 2.0 or a Refund, so I again said I'll take the refund.

Well here I am still waiting for my refund, and it was a PayPal so it is'nt that tuff to refund me.

I really feel like they don't care. So I wrote a complaint to Paypal

I would'nt buy it, there are plenty of Free ones out there, don't waste your $9.99