That's where the VIA C7 would be advantageous, as it has an encryption engine (based on AES-256) as part of the CPU.
no need to have 5.1 or 7.1 onboard... it's supposed to be a 2d gaming and emulation machine... actually ithink it's important to point out what is NOT needed at all and what it is...
nice! at wich speed and at what cost do they came? i remember those c7 not being economic at all back in the day
Hmmm as I said, one of those onboard (RealTek or a C media sound ? ) C Media http://www.ecsusa.com/downloads/drivers_sound.html Since those cards are quite good, and they are onboard (well they were with the PC I had before this one. And If I didn´t have the Creative Audigy, then I would have the C media again, since this machine has also an onboard soundcard. And they are so generic, that they run without too much trouble. But to me the sound is a bit important. And so is the joystick ports. But I am not thinking of a smashing surround sound card at all. Heck, that you could always put a jackstick to phono cable to your own sound system you have in your living room. Or where ever you have your loudspeakers and such. And let your sound system do the surround sound stuff. And why have encryption on an "open source" console ?
Aaaah ok, but VIA has also onboard soundcards (sorry to mention it. But well we should have different alternatives when it comes to sound). Just to clarify, before somebody punches every body and slamdunks his obscure soundchip in it.
Can't find the CPU by itself, only as integrated into a Mini-ITX board. It's avalable as either C7-D (20W TDP) from 1.5GHz up to 2.0GHz, with the 2GHz using an 800MHz FSB, or C7-M (mobile version) with the same TDP and clock rate, but with only a 400MHz FSB. As far as sound, I wouldn't mind surround sound, but would say 5.1 at highest, maybe even 4.1 highest...but at least 2.1 (which i guess isn't technically surround sound then).
If we were going to use a C7 I'll rather use an already available miniITX board rather than trying to put together a custom one. I say stay with the SH4: theres more people in the homebrew scene thats used to that CPU...
false. homebrew scene is far bigger inx86 and compatibles. here is a nice example of motherboard suitable for all uses http://cgi.ebay.it/New-VIA-C3-2000M...69QQihZ018QQcategoryZ4614QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
the SH4's capabilities are well surpassed in 2007. you could find a celeron that packs more power than an SH4 really. The DC's graphics , by the way, cannot be said to be the direct result of the SH-4 - more like the direct result of PowerVR2. Besides, as I ve stressed before, there's no point to use a Super H processor at all (any type) because energy efficiency and cooling solutions have progressed a lot since 1998 that the Sh-4 was released. Bottom line, if you want accessibility , the x86 is the answer. You ll find an x86 under every rock, as they re synonumous with computers for most of the population. Besides, having a non-x86 processor would mean cross-compiling and the need for a development kit. Instead, if you have an x86, you can code everything natively on a PC and just use an emulation environment to tighten stuff up - no expensive devkit solutions, or weird PCI cards that cost an arm and a leg.
I say dual SH4, using one as the CPU and the other for graphics and stuff. Yeah, but what kind of homebrew? apps? or emus and games? plus, I can say the entire DC scene community will be interested in a console using an SH4, but how many people of the x86 scene will jump into another console-wannabe miniPC? After all if we use a miniITX CPU (even a powerful one) we're not getting any more power than most UMPCs, which at least are portable... And a S3 GPU? those are bad for 3D and 2D. It would be better to just use another C3. BTW, do you know tha C3 is kinda old right? like, one of the first miniITX CPUs from VIA. I say, if we are going ITX then lets use a Pico board and make a DIY portable. We'll get much more hype around the project if its a portable... EDIT: barc0de, Intel and windows are synonumous with most of the population, X86 is NOT, simply becos most people is too ignorant to know what that is...
The Sh-4's graphics rendering capabilities are next to ass. That's why you had a seperate graphics rendering chip (power vr 2) regarding the intel and windows thing, true, but we re talking about coders. When someone knows how to code and is willing to program, they also know for sure what type of processor their system has. Finding an x86 to prepare your programs is much easier than getting a HARP system (the SH-4 PC) or a dedicated PCI board. Much cheaper as well.
I think SH4 is older than C3 and c3 can still pack twice as much power than a dual SH4 solution... and all of that while being cheaper and giving ethernet, usb2.0 and other advantages. i can agree to the point of avoiding to became a miniPC, and i'd like to see a different CPU solution, but SH series are obsolete and COSTY (and costs makes projects fail). sadly the cpu offers are not so wide nowadays, and mainly are aimed at high costs, high performances systems... if we can find another CPU with embedded motherboard with good enough performances we can forget about C3 and x86. otherwise....
cost aside, why bother re-inventing the wheel? With so many x86 applications and coders, not to mention tools and Computers around the world, it would be daft to use any other processor for a popular system. Going against the grain is one thing, but not at the expense of shooting oneself in the foot! You mention that you don't want it to become a "mini-PC" yet EVERY console out there tries to become a PC with some port of linux. I don't see the problem of a mini-PC at-heart, as long as the packaging doesnt look PCish and the components are static and embedded. Also, PCs are known for media capabilities and word processing, internet browsing etc. If you make a system that only plays games an emulators, offering some kind of internet play as well, I don't think people will confuse it for a PC. Unless you pack it in a butt-ugly grey box. Look at the XBOX. most people consider it a CONSOLE, despite it being a PC at heart.
I thought we were doing a 2D console, and that therefore using a CPU for rendering instead of a GPU would be better. Was the project changed and nobody said anything? I wouldnt say that much, nor that the SH4 is obsolete... Anyway, if the problem is the lack of CPUs to choose, what about using a GPU? I read sometime ago about these guys using a GPU as a CPU in some dedicated areas (not graphics) and getting some mad numbers in the benchmarks. Its worth a try if you ask me...
Who said 2d graphics are better done on CPU? and which CPU? I doubt SH4 can do any decent 2d graphics (in the realm of "advanced" 2d graphics that the whole topic seems to be pivotting around) since it was designed with another purpose in mind. If you want some information about 2D rendering, "old-school" my advise would be to look up the older PC graphics chips that offered 2D acceleration. The Matrox GPUs in particular. Also, the SH4 is obsolete, and it's very simplistic to say the least to say that doubling the amount of processors one doubles the power. Mutli-processing solutions should be avoided at all costs, unless it's absolutely necessary to have two processors. At this point, please don't confuse multiprocessors (x2 a core) with the PS3's SPEs, since they are part of a single processor, and do not follow traditional parallel or syncronised processing models. Alas, that's why they re called "elements" and not "cores". Anyway, let's not get too carried away with the technicalities of electronics engineering. Besides, having 2xSh-4 would be much more expensive than having a single x86 chip, and for what? less performance? why?!
http://www.logicsupply.com/product_info.php/cPath/78_93/products_id/696 Except for cost, it'd seem ideal...mind you, this is the "discreet A/V chips" way of looking at it.
Very nice solution EvilWays. I believe that cutting off the extra bits (for example the 1 PCI expansion port, the firewire port, limiting USB ports , removing some other needless components) could bring price down sufficiently
x86 is faster and more versitle. Period. VIA make C3 and C7 chips from 533Mhz to 2Ghz. There's a good list here: http://mini-itx.com/store/?c=2 . With a custom BIOS config and OS (DOS or Linux based maybe?) you have a system on your hands. These boards have LAN, IDE and USB, plus GFX and sound, and some might even support Wifi and\or bluetooth, which would be ideal for wireless networking (duh!) and wireless controllers (which everyone loves and wants), plus TV out and VGA\DVI, for HD. Plus, if this project works out, once some money's been made, it would be possible to create embedded boards with just the required amounts of on-board RAM, IDE connectors and even the port we want (ie dropping the PS\2 keyboard, RCA audio, HDMI maybe?). As much as I love fanless systems, I think a fan or 2 would make the system more stable and cheaper (fan'd systems are cheaper than fanless ones), plus, as stupid as it sounds, I think a console with a fan makes it seem more hardcore and powerful, or maybe it's just me :shrug:?
