Toshiba Reveals New Line of MBX Powered Portable Media Players

Discussion in 'Mobile Devices and SoCs' started by Lazy8s, Jan 5, 2006.

  1. Lazy8s

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    18
    Toshiba has launched a gigabeat S Series of PMPs with Freescale's i.MX31 application processor, an MBX Lite solution. They feature hard drives as 30GB and 60GB models, a 2.4" 320x240 screen, and Windows Mobile Portable Media Center software. These devices mark the first announced products to use the i.MX31.
    Since Toshiba is willing to outsource for MBX performance, they should just become an MBX licensee finally and produce their own processors in-house.
     
    #1 Lazy8s, Jan 5, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2006
  2. Ailuros

    Ailuros Epsilon plus three
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,435
    Likes Received:
    181
    Location:
    Chania
    It's my understanding that in this case Toshiba has licensed more than just the MBX part of that SoC. Licensing now such a sollution saves in the very least time.
     
  3. Lazy8s

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    18
    Are these gigabeats the first announced handhelds with hardware 3D and huge HDDs?
     
  4. roninja

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    so Ailuros you are alluding that Toshiba could be a potential MBX/SGX licencee?
     
  5. Lazy8s

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    18
    I think Ailuros just meant that buying the whole, completed chips from Freescale might make more sense now than making their own MBX processors since they missed the opportunity to license MBX early enough to be ready for this.
     
  6. SiBoy

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    The Toshiba division making these devices is separate from Toshiba semiconductor.

    Toshiba semiconductor already has their own OpenGL ES graphics core shipping in their T4G and T5G IC's. No reason to license MBX. Likely it was just easier for the PMP device to be built around the Freescale chip than the T4G/T5G type of chip (which could be due to SW, appropriateness of external interfaces, etc.).
     
  7. Ailuros

    Ailuros Epsilon plus three
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,435
    Likes Received:
    181
    Location:
    Chania
    Exactly.

    a. There were 2 further Top10 semiconductor manufacturers mentioned in IMG's past PR announcements, which apparently were negotiating with them for MBX licenses. The number got stuck at the former 6 and Toshiba licensing from Freescale sounds too much of a coincidence to me.

    b. The above just tells me that sollution X was less flexible than licensed sollution Y. What am I missing?
     
  8. SiBoy

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    You can call it a coincidence, but it is a known fact that Toshiba already has an in-house OpenGL ES graphics engine (not MBX), and it is already shipping in phones.

    No, what it tells you is that the choice of IC for PMP has nothing to do with 3D, or MBX. You throw in the word "licensed solution" as if the MBX license has something to do with it.

    This is similar to your comments on PepperPad in the other thread. I talked to them at CES yesterday, and their use of the Intel 2700G has nothing to do with the MBX core inside. The 3D is not even used. They use 2700G because it's an LCD controller that is a companion to the Xscale part they chose, and its capable of driving an SVGA screen. The fact that the MBX core happens to be on the same chip is incidental given that it's disabled (like the SH-Mobile chips from Renesas that have the MBX disabled).
     
  9. Ty

    Ty Roberta E. Lee
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    52
    Why would they disable it? Save power? Save on the licensing?
     
  10. Lazy8s

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    18
    Regardless of just 3D, they're choosing application processors with MBX over those without.
     
  11. Ty

    Ty Roberta E. Lee
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    52
    Uh yea, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement of it if the companies are disabling it, is it?

    So again I ask, why would companies use MBX-disabled chips? There has to be a reason and I'm curious, as I am sure you are as well.
     
  12. roninja

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    that is nonesence, Toshiba could've just used the i.MX31L chip which doesn't have MBX-lite as part of the SoC. Also which phones have the Renesas SH-M3 chipset insde and are not utilised? FOMA 901i?

    MBX is the defacto standard for mobile graphics api's and will be inside the majority of SoCs in the coming year or so. The is no denying this.
     
  13. Ty

    Ty Roberta E. Lee
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    52
    Uh, ok. You're not answering my question either so let me try again.


    IF Sis is correct that MBX is indeed disabled on some/many of these products, can you tell me WHY that is?

    That's ALL I'm looking for, a reason WHY.

    I'm sure it's a fabulous chip(set). Hell, I've even recommended the Dell Axim because of it so I'm just a bit shocked to discover it might not even be enabled.
     
  14. roninja

    Regular

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    0
    well I guess in a way i'm asking the same thing would be interesting to know why as well instead of being cryptic just say so?
     
  15. Ty

    Ty Roberta E. Lee
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    52
    Err, not sure if you're referring to me or not but earlier I asked(which already was the second time)

     
  16. SiBoy

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    1
    Simple, these SoC's serve a lot of purposes, only one of which is graphics, and very few vendors have parts that are 100% identical with the exception of MBX not being present.

    SH-Mobile3 is a good example. If you want the same processor speed, etc., but don't care about MBX, which part do you buy? No choice, you are stuck buying the one with MBX.

    Same for users of the Intel 2700G that want a VGA LCD controller to put next to their Xscale. Which one do they buy? They're stuck with the 2700G (as PepperPad was). They don't care about enabling MBX, all they wanted was Intel's display controller.
     
  17. Ty

    Ty Roberta E. Lee
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ok, you're answering my latest reply which has a slightly altered version of my primary question. Let me clarify.

    WHY did they bother to disable MBX?
    • Is it because with MBX disabled, it's lower power consumption?
    • Is it because with MBX disabled, it's a cheaper licensing fee?
    That's what I'm trying to get at. I'm not asking, 'why buy an MBX SoC if you're going to disable MBX'? I'm asking "why disable it in the first place?"
     
  18. Lazy8s

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    18
    Buyers of an MBX application processor like SH-Mobile3 from a company like Renesas apparently did have the option of a similar, non-MBX processor (without even considering the competition from other chip brands) of which the 3D core was the biggest difference: the SH-Mobile3A.
     
  19. Ailuros

    Ailuros Epsilon plus three
    Legend Subscriber

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    9,435
    Likes Received:
    181
    Location:
    Chania
    Where did I comment on Pepperpad in any other thread?
     
  20. Ty

    Ty Roberta E. Lee
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    2,448
    Likes Received:
    52
    Interesting. But surely it couldn't be a disabled MBX that made the difference. It was some other price, performance, power, or supply issue. Otherwise you're making the argument that yes, a disabled MBX is precisely WHY they choose it and that hardly makes any sense. That'd be like me buying a 486SX over a DX because the former had a disabled math co-processor.

    What are the differences btwn the two?
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...