This relatively recent release is intended to replace the apparently temporarily unavailable original boards the R.RM5xxx, and I can imagine that whoever it was designed for, it’s probably adequate. But for us hobbyists?
This board, pitched as “new”, is based on the Novatek NT68667, which is far from new. This chip was first seen in
classic prehistoric LCD Monitors such as the Philips 170/190 and is still knocking around to this day.
One of the biggest problems with all of the boards I talk about on this blog, is that they aren’t made for hobbyists, we don’t have any line of support to their creators, that we’ve got them at all is only thanks to leaked/stolen PCB gerbers and firmware images and the desire of numerous Chinese vendors to make a buck.
To me the only interesting thing about NTA92C is that when viewing the OSD, I can see very clearly that is is the work of the same people who created the R.RM5xxx boards.
So far, all of the builds I have tried have the wrong EDID! 1440×900 panels report themselves as 1280×800, 1024×768 as 1440×900 and so on. This is a little frustrating as you’ve got to wrestle with the operating system to get it to output a resolution that’ll actually work, assuming that a standard timing will even work at all with the connected panel.
I had hoped that I’d be able to add support for this to my trusty ROVATools suite but thus far I’ve encountered strong technical resistance. The Novatek is a pig to program, and the code running on these is so different to that of R.RM5xxx that I’m basically starting from scratch. I don’t think this board is worth my time.
As with the R.RM5xxx boards, I’ve once again got the feeling that the programming/flashing resources I’ve been supplied are not intended to be in the hands of the general public…
Conclusion: These boards are not a ready for market solution, but if you ended up buying one anyway, it’s not as if it’s not going to work. With enough mucking around they can be made to work with the available resources, but in terms of the experience and end result. they’re no match for the R.RM5xxx.