Ding. I was right. Look at the schematics. GPU 1, GPU 2. Graphical Processing Unit. I figured Nintendo would be cheap and run a second GPU to get the 3d output at proper speads rather than wasting money and time with single GPU processing.
Nintendo is not using Tegra, Seriously Nintendo using a highend NVidia tech? Nintendo uses cheap graphical chip for the DS/i. All they are going to do is add a second one. I already posted my theoritcal sutrcture for getting 3d onto the phillips/panasoic? 3d screen and this seems to indicate I was right.
So to Zarx, no it's not strange. It's logical and falls into the realm of common sense. Why double the speed of a single GPU to provide 2 renders. This would create an exponential cost for every X% increase. It would come to the point where the chip would be 5x the current chip for only double the power. Where as just some tweaking you could pay only for 1 extra chip and VRAM and get the same performace? what in any logical mind where paying an exponential cost for lowered returns is better that 2 chips. Also keep in mind that parralel processing is better than singular processing. In the case of a single GPU you still need to render frame 1 then frame 2. In parrallel you process both frames at the same time.
Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.
