| painmaster212 said: They should have added more power to the system in place of the 3D and lowered the price. Did anyone actually buy the 3DS because of the 3D effect on here? |
Yeah, a number of us on this thread did.
The 3DS only does 120 million polygons with a 1 GHz GPU underclock at 400 MHz with a 2-core 1 GHz CPU & 60 fps per video image with an 800 resolution with Native 800 graphics with more then 50 shader cores (more then 360) with an 5:3 aspect ratio screen, with a pixel density higher then 220, with way more better textures & shader abilities then the Wii.
If the 3DS didnt do 3D, they would have settle with 25 million polygons with the Nintendo ARM 9 CPU, which is a 2-core 268 MHz CPU with a 200 MHz max clock GPU clocked at 200 MHz, & 30 fps per video image with an 400 resolution with native 400 graphics with fewer shader cores (because of weaker older GPU) with an 4:3 aspect ratio screen, with a pixel density of something like 199, with textures & shader abilities below the Wii.
The only thing good from not doing the 3D would be the battery because of weaker CPU & GPU & lower frame rate.
The 3D effect force them to do soo much more pixel density with higher resolution and better native graphics and more polygons (because both polygons & lack of polygons become way more obvious when viewed in 3-D), and it force 60 fps per video image on a Nintendo Handheld just so they won't have strobe effects, and it's the standard for 3D since the 1930's. And we got way more better textures & shader abilities then the Wii because those things become way more obvious when viewed in 3D. This is why the GameCube went so high with its graphics, and then right before they release the GameCube they cancel the 3D effect, but the rest of the specs for its functions where already there from their earlier vision, and they where to close to manufacturing time, and needed to release it for Holiday.
