Mini-puters: MK802-II versus UG802  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Fallingwater
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2012, 08:57:42 pm
content: I like the idea of tiny Android computers; I've been following the availability of new devices over at DealExtreme, and had set my sights on theRikomagic MK802-II(it has significant improvements over the earlier MK802). I was about to buy it, but I just saw they are now also selling theUG802(no apparent brand). (Links are non-referral, as you can see.)The specs are very similar (1GB RAM, MALI400 GPU, 4GB flash, the usual ports), but there is one important difference: the UG802 uses a Cortex A9 dualcore CPU (Rockchip RK3066 package), while the MK802-II uses an older Cortex A8 single-core (the famous Allwinner A10).The UG802 is obviously more expensive, and being more recent and less famous it has received less community-made upgrades (no custom ROMs and no way to run Linux), but I'm sure given time that'll change.The main complaint about the Rikomagic MK802-II is that it isn't exactly a lightning-fast performer; this is to be expected from low-power ARM processors, but some more speed would certainly make these gadgets more useable. So, anyone who's used both A8 and A9 devices, do you think the speed difference between them is significant?

author: poptones
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 13, 2012, 10:06:35 pm
content: What's the point of these things?

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2012, 04:53:39 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 13, 2012, 10:06:35 pmUpgrading a normal HDMI monitor/TV to a networked media player, internet TV, casual gaming platform, media center.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2012, 09:12:46 am
content: As with all Rockchip processors they are cheap and NASTY.They really are.The A9 is faster, but not much.Just has the extra core to get the extra oomph, but on rockchip? All bets are off.I've ran into a similar situation a while ago and i'm pretty pissed at all the hopeless implementations they came up with, no flash no nothing and they are all very slowEnter X86, clear cut way.

author: LEECH666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 14, 2012, 03:57:49 pm
content: Minicomputers usually ain't so mini.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minicomputer/smart ass mode off

author: GeoffS
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 15, 2012, 01:05:56 am
content: After looking at some of the small Android based systems as mentioned by the OP, I decided to get aMele A1000(or it may be an A2000 when it gets here ).The same seller also has acubieboardwhich looks cheap enough to have a play with.

author: Fallingwater
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2012, 11:49:30 am
content: Quote from: poptones on September 13, 2012, 10:06:35 pmThey are complete computers the size of a USB stick. They'd be perfect for light-duty computing - say, writing or browsing the web, for which firing up the desktop box is a bit overkill. I like the idea of plugging one in my big 27" screen and do most of the things I do on the big box without having it sucking power all the time.Quote from: T4P on September 14, 2012, 09:12:46 amI thought all makers of chips that use the ARM architectures essentially stuck to set specs, and only differed in amounts of RAM and such. I mean, isn't an Allwinner A10 essentially the same thing as the equivalent CortexA8/Mali400 combo by Rockchip?QuoteIt'll be a while before we get $60 USB-stick computer using x86 processors.

author: T4P
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2012, 01:11:15 pm
content: Quote from: Fallingwater on September 15, 2012, 11:49:30 amthey make the same core, but why does the Tegra 3 and the Samsung chip in the S3 differ so much in performance? It's down to the way they do thingsAnd well,x86? Probably not. I just ran away from the fact you simply can't have a high power x86 processor that has a fast FPUIt was for a media box and i wanted it to be able to at the very least run full flash nicely, not some crippled flash that still seems to require a dual core 1.2GHz to get things going smoothly (Insert argument) And no, you simply can't do it with 1920x1080 and flash doesn't have proper hardware acceleration across all the SoCs let alone the CPU. 1.2GHz Dual Core is still not something you find yet on cheap chinese usb-arm devices and it certainly won't perform nowhere near the speed of a Qualcomm S3 MSM8260 or an TI OMAP 4430 (which is the best you will find)Don't forget that a 1GHz Dual Core Cortex A9 processor has at most the FPU performance of a 800MHz "Coppermine" PIII i thinkFPU chews the most power in a cpu (again, i think) so i think most ARM chips underclocks the FPUs as the 1GHz is not a global clock, it's only the clock for the computing processorFPU helps a shitload in hardware decoding - shown in ST's demo of the STM32F4 with FPU on and off. The faster it is, all the more better.

author: andersm
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 15, 2012, 01:54:58 pm
content: Quote from: T4P on September 15, 2012, 01:11:15 pmCompanies can license ARM cores as a "blob" or in synthesizable form that allows for architectural modifications.

author: Bored@Work
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 16, 2012, 09:29:59 am
content: Quote from: https://twitter.com/DX_Coupons/status/242462227993620480

author: Fallingwater
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: September 17, 2012, 01:00:12 am
content: So which of the two do I get? :/ Or do I wait for someone to make a non-rockchip equivalent with an A9?