| fatslob-:O said:
Oh dropped frames means alot but it's just that the PS3 compensates it much more since it has much better graphics whereas the 3DS is mostly failing to win out the PSP in every category easily since it's the more powerful machine. The 3DS could perform better in graphics than the PSP but it's just that it didn't win in the draw distance category since it revelations had lower draw distance than alot of PSP games. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/3d-vision-surround-stereoscopic-gaming,2672-6.html LOL stereoscopic 3D takes like 4X the power. |
@underlined. Stop right there. So the frames mean nothing if the console can compensate. So frames alone mean nothing. Both the 3DS and PS3 drop frames but you consider that the PS3 has much better graphics. Let's just consider that a closed case. Dropped frames: inconclusive.
What benchmarks do you have to support that the PSP wins in every category easily? It seems like "since it's the more powerful machine" is your a-priori. So what benchmarks and tests do you have?
Also, if the PSP wins in every category easily, then how come the 3DS could perform better in graphics than the PSP? Are you talking about current graphics in today's games versus the 3DS' potential? In that case, doesn't that contradict your "since it's the more powerful machine" argument?
@stereoscopic 3D. That's not what you linked me to. You linked me to Surround 3D. Also, unless you have a link to how Nintendo implemented 3D, those Nvidia benchmarks you provided are invalid.
