The OFFICIAL... Neosd MicroSD Card thread...

[Rot]

Hehe... Funny...

My opinion on load times and this thread... is that it's sorta cool to have fast load times... BUT... the main priority of this device is to play games accurately and it sure as hell does that..

SO... unless you're changing out games every 15 minutes... this to me is a non-issue...

SURE, there are some of you who feel they must compare it the the 161-1 carts or the other MD, Snes etc Flashcarts... but all in all... that's dumb..

xROTx

PS. The Neosd has been developed with foresight and the homebrew market is serviced well with this device... don't forget that mofo's...

 

[Razoola]

Your right ROT, this does not affect the product once the game is flashed. It does however have an effect given some NeoSDs are faster than others and while that is acceptabled if the cause is external it still comes down to wether this is a fault with flash chips on some NeoSDs or something else that can be fixed in firmware. This is quite important given much has been said about flashspeed in the past and no doubt will be said again in the future given there could be a competing product in the future.

The way I see it is like this, a big deal about the 30% speed increase in the new firmware and we were all happy. In turn then, a 20% speed defisit in some NeoSD carts cannot be dismissed if the blame can be placed on the neoSD itsself and not external factors.

Depending on the what the fault is then, does this mean neosd will replace NeoSD cards with this issue for those that want a repleacment?

 

[neodev]

Your right ROT, this does not affect the product once the game is flashed. It does however have an effect given some NeoSDs are faster than others and while that is acceptabled if the cause is external it still comes down to wether this is a fault with flash chips on some NeoSDs or something else that can be fixed in firmware. This is quite important given much has been said about flashspeed in the past and no doubt will be said again in the future given there could be a competing product in the future.

The way I see it is like this, a big deal about the 30% speed increase in the new firmware and we were all happy. In turn then, a 20% speed defisit in some NeoSD carts cannot be dismissed if the blame can be placed on the neoSD itsself and not external factors.

Depending on the what the fault is then, does this mean neosd will replace NeoSD cards with this issue for those that want a repleacment?

Well, I don't see it as a fault in the cart. All electronic devices have tolerances, not all devices are manufactured exactly the same. The flash and erase times given by the manufacturer are mean times, so there are faster and slower flashes, the same way there are speed differences in a SD card when you use it on a PC, even using two cards of the same model, that's normal. I can show you some data, taken from manufacturer manual:

S29GL128P (page 62): Chip erase time: typical 64s. Maximum: 256s . The first erase cycle, that would erase the P rom data, that is 1MB + 8MB is then: 64s for 16MB -> 36s for 9MB, that means, 36s is the typical value, but according to a table, it could go up to 144s, and still it's in spec, so, that's not an issue, that's normal. What the manufacturer doesn't state is how temperature or voltage affects to these values, keep in mind that we are using 3.3V (right in the middle of the spec 3.0V to 3.6V), so, does it increase the flashing time? maybe, it's not explained, maybe in some flash chips it does, maybe in other it doesn't. Who is seeing 37s in flash erase time, are in the "typical" range, and 50s? yes, it's still in range, it's not the typical, but it's well below the maximum.
You can refer to that manual, it's public, just search for S29GL128P in the Cypress page.

 

[massimiliano]

Just curious, would that be possible to get a tool testing these parameters automatically generating a report?

 

[Rot]

Hehe...

You see Raz... I view this perceived issue as how i view the forum... there's range of opinions and posts i will accept and then there's crossing the line...

The device works... tolerance 20%... that's fine...

Not every pcb will have the exact same width of soldering... not ever pcb will have exctly the same pin length...

As long as the device works and the customers are happy... why worry....

It's like I said how I view the forum... there's a few things that you may not be happy with... but why complain... as long as most of you can play...

xROTx

PS. I look at the big picture... SURE there's the minutae... and i take note of them as well.. BUT in the main....

I'm happy with the way things are with the Neosd device...

EDIT: THURSDAYS is my babysitting Grandkiddy day... just sayin'... best not try to stress me out here...

 

[Razoola]

Well, I don't see it as a fault in the cart. All electronic devices have tolerances, not all devices are manufactured exactly the same. The flash and erase times given by the manufacturer are mean times, so there are faster and slower flashes, the same way there are speed differences in a SD card when you use it on a PC, even using two cards of the same model, that's normal. I can show you some data, taken from manufacturer manual:

S29GL128P (page 62): Chip erase time: typical 64s. Maximum: 256s . The first erase cycle, that would erase the P rom data, that is 1MB + 8MB is then: 64s for 16MB -> 36s for 9MB, that means, 36s is the typical value, but according to a table, it could go up to 144s, and still it's in spec, so, that's not an issue, that's normal. What the manufacturer doesn't state is how temperature or voltage affects to these values, keep in mind that we are using 3.3V (right in the middle of the spec 3.0V to 3.6V), so, does it increase the flashing time? maybe, it's not explained, maybe in some flash chips it does, maybe in other it doesn't. Who is seeing 37s in flash erase time, are in the "typical" range, and 50s? yes, it's still in range, it's not the typical, but it's well below the maximum.
You can refer to that manual, it's public, just search for S29GL128P in the Cypress page.

Yes you are right in what you are saying but you are forgetting the following that has been brought up in the thread already. As I understand how it was written in this thread Yosh41 has tried the AES NeoSD and MVS NeoSD (with converter) on the same AES system. Same AES, same PSU, same room tempreture. The MVS NeoSD was 20% faster because his AES neoSD seems to have this issue. In his test you must also agree something other than the AES, PSU or room tempreture is causing the flash chips on his AES NeoSD to act differently.

Its difficult to say in his case that it is not a fault given it seems at the moment that the majority of people do not have this issue. If one on the other hand we were to take the chip specs into account and as the reason for this, one would more expected to see slower times as the norm, and affecting far more NeoSDs than is.

 

[Gyrian]

While I do like to explore these questions we're discussing (why I ultimately contributed my data points), I do want to make it clear that none of this has made one lick of difference to my enjoyment of my NeoSD. These times might read long on paper, but I haven't found the process to be a bother.

Given the options, I do value how the design was laid out. The behavior that accurately reflects a real cart once flashed is great. For my part, it's also kind of a plus that it's better used one game at a time. I find the vast libraries one tends to fill these flash carts with sort of paralyzing sometimes.

 

[neodev]

Yes you are right in what you are saying but you are forgetting the following that has been brought up in the thread already. As I understand how it was written in this thread Yosh41 has tried the AES NeoSD and MVS NeoSD (with converter) on the same AES system. Same AES, same PSU, same room tempreture. The MVS NeoSD was 20% faster because his AES neoSD seems to have this issue. In his test you must also agree something other than the AES, PSU or room tempreture is causing the flash chips on his AES NeoSD to act differently.

Its difficult to say in his case that it is not a fault given it seems at the moment that the majority of people do not have this issue. If one on the other hand were to take the chip specs into account and as the reason, one would more expected to see slower times affecting far more NeoSDs than is.

Also, AES carts are a bit slower programming because the data goes through the extra FPGA chip in the CHA board and there is a small protocol there, as it controls the C flash data lines, so it having a slower flashing speed in AES is normal.

But as I said, it's not an issue that some carts are slower, their flashes are well in the manufacturer specs. The flashrom manufacturer probably gives a wide range so they don't have to scrap many flash chips that would not fit in a narrower range.

 

[Razoola]

Hehe...

You see Raz... I view this perceived issue as how i view the forum... there's range of opinions and posts i will accept and then there's crossing the line...

The device works... tolerance 20%... that's fine...

Not every pcb will have the exact same width of soldering... not ever pcb will have exctly the same pin length...

As long as the device works and the customers are happy... why worry....

It's like I said how I view the forum... there's a few things that you may not be happy with... but why complain... as long as most of you can play...

xROTx

PS. I look at the big picture... SURE there's the minutae... and i take note of them as well.. BUT in the main....

I'm happy with the way things are with the Neosd device...

EDIT: THURSDAYS is my babysitting Grandkiddy day... just sayin'... best not try to stress me out here...

Yes thats one way of looking at it.

The other way is this. I have reviewed the product and at the moment I would guess and say maybe 1 or 2 percent of NeoSDs sold so far (based on this thread) are 20% slower than the other 98 or 99 percent when it comes to flashing a few games. For most people I fully agree this may be 100% acceptable but its our job (well espicially my job given I reviewed the product) not to hide this fact.

You know how it is, member 'a' may not be happy that he paid the same 400 as member 'b' but his NeoSD is 20% slower. Then goes on to buying SD cards to try and solve something that cannot be fixed unless he tries a different NeoSD cart.

To be honest I wish I did not discover this issue, but unfortunatey with the help of neosd himself I did. Up until that point it was discovered he was 100% sure there could be nothing on the NeoSD that could cause this difference in speed. A few tests and sdcards later its 99% likely to be something on the NeoSD causing this.

 

[Razoola]

Also, AES carts are a bit slower programming because the data goes through the extra FPGA chip in the CHA board and there is a small protocol there, as it controls the C flash data lines, so it having a slower flashing speed in AES is normal.

But as I said, it's not an issue that some carts are slower, their flashes are well in the manufacturer specs. The flashrom manufacturer probably gives a wide range so they don't have to scrap many flash chips that would not fit in a narrower range.

Yes there is a very slight speed difference with the AES card, but its really really low (1% maybe) and not the great difference in speed a couple have had.

Given the wide range the manufacturer gives, the results so far clearly point that is not the cause. Mainly because this would be a more 50/50 split on the people affected, espicially given the number of chips on each NeoSD.

 

[mastamuzz]

I remember the time when there was no NeoSD and also when they came out of the blue with a cart that worked 99% then 100% after msX so why are we getting the underwear in a bunch now? It works it's here and who paid for it enjoys it! Let the NeoSD team surprise us again with an update adding things, forcing shit at this moment is completely stupid.

 

[Razoola]

No one is getting their knickers in a twist , the NeoSD is a great product period.

Its about letting people know this issue may be present on their NeoSD if they start wondering why they can't hit the same flashing times others report.

 

[daithidownunder]

No one is getting their knickers in a twist , the NeoSD is a great product period.

Its about letting people know this issue may be present on their NeoSD if they start wondering why they can't hit the same flashing times others report.

Agreed, it's important to discuss these things in an open forum.

Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk

 

[greatfunky]

A question for neodev comes to my mind : will it be possible to improve again in the future the loading speed or are we at the maximum limit ?

 

[benjiedude]

No one is getting their knickers in a twist , the NeoSD is a great product period.

Its about letting people know this issue may be present on their NeoSD if they start wondering why they can't hit the same flashing times others report.

I appreciate you looking into this and posting it here.

 

[mastamuzz]

It's been acknowledge by the team and they have stated far too many times there is a part of the team focused on still improving things till there is nothing left to improve, they have never left people hanging and I personally have received great customer service from them and I bet GadgetUK too they do constant follow ups for "real Issues" and they don't stop till is resolved, so creating an issue right now is pointless if the user doesn't see it as an issue, as I said they know and they can work on it in due time, at the moment I believe they still have so many people to attend and give customer service cause soooo many people don't want to come here as a noob even though ROT has been doing an impeccable job to keep noobs in the loop even after being rude some of them.

lets keep in mind that our consoles are not brand new and even same revisions have different behavior, as some may recall I had the sync issue on a 3-6 I have two 3-6 units but the other was still open to be modded, guess what? after reassembled that 3-6 has no issue at all, and given my 3-3 had no issue I ruled that as a problem with the console not the cart but not everyone has different consoles to try. so we might see this as an issue with the cart but it might not be.

what I mean with this is that we should let them work on it, having testicular jumper cables attached wont help, the "other product" can come out today or 2025 who knows.

but I am starting to wonder if there is truth to Mitsu's and darksoft words........

 

[Rot]

but I am starting to wonder if there is truth to Mitsu's and darksoft words........

Please expand on this...

xROTx

 

[GadgetUK]

I didn't realise this flash time thing had become an area of concern! My first thoughts are there are two possibilities here:-

1) Tolerance difference in the flash ROMs, but 20% seems like a lot - but maybe that is within manufacture specs?
2) Speed of the erase process - I wonder where the ARM gets its clock from? Is it theoretically possible that a clock is too slow or missing some cycles for some reason.

With regards to programming differences:-


It is probably better to separate erase time vs programming time to work out where the bottlenecks are.

Raz, out of interest, have you tried your cart in another MVS to see if the timings are the same? If so, that would point to just tolerance differences between the flash ROMs perhaps. Unless there's some clock thing going on where on some boards the ARM is running faster than on other boards, but I cannot think how, unless the ARM takes its own clock from the MVS, and perhaps there's a difference there. I assume the ARM just "does its own thing" and erases the flash ROM in parallel to the MVS 68K, so the 68K isn't actually sending any erase commands to the board, other than perhaps an initial - "erase these blocks {range from : to}" etc. If the 68K is doing some of the leg work, then maybe the BIOS could have an effect - I am thinking about interrupts etc.

 

[Razoola]

Hi Gadget, yes, I have tried everything. There is an issue there and its defo related to the NeoSD, three different MVS systems were tried. Then there is also the results yoshi did on an AES with two NeoSDs.

That said neodev is looking at it and has an idea to try given he had some weird situations long ago. Hopefully I'll get a firmware to check at some point later today to test. The exact reason of what is happening is not known and might well be down to issues in some flash chips themself.

The strange thing here is in relation to the times. ATM at least it seems very strange that once the sdcard speed is taken out of the mix the times seem quite constant. The kof2003 erase time being around 37-40 sec vs 50-52 sec is the first pointer the chips are erasing at different speeds. One would normally expect to see times in the middle also and not only at either end, granted though, there are not many postings related to erase times yet. Thats why I still have my money on an issue thay is probably fixable in firmware. Of course I could be wrong.

I have my fingers crossed. btw, I also mentioned another avenue to neodev that may speed up flashing times for everyone. So even if this is not solved another speed increase may be on the cards in a newer firmware (may not be that massive but would be better than nothing).

 

[Razoola]

Forgot to ask, as a matter of interest, what is the timed amount of the 'erase' message you see with kof2003 before the 'flashing' message appears?