| Soundwave said: You do realize the A5X (the Vita processor) and the A9X are the same architecture right? So yes you can compare those two directly. I wasn't saying running them at the exact same fidelity as the home console either, I said running them at a lowered resolution, like say 960x540 (1/4th the pixel draw) with a 50GB/sec memory bandwidth for the portable would be possible I think. You don't need a 1080P display for a 5-6 inch screen, PS4 games on Vita's 540p screen look very nice as is. I don't think Western developers are going to give a damn about Nintendo just because they release a me-too PS4 with zero userbase. They're going to need something else going for it, if it can handle their PS4/X1 engines but offer those games to the portable Nintendo fanbase (the one that has 5x more userbase than the piddly console), then sure I could see some interest from some Western devs too. I'm just not counting on some miracle here where Nintendo somehow becomes the darling of the third party circuit in the West. |
1. No they are not! The Vita has an ARM cortex A9 processor with a PowerVR SGX543MP4+ while the A9X sports a custom ARM core designed by Apple engineers and a GPU from the PowerVR series 6XT ...
2. Resolution isn't the only thing to worry about. Developers have to worry about hitting fixed function bottlenecks where edge setup, rasterization, and texture sampler capabilities are more sparse plus PS4 is feature level 12_0 capable whereas PowerVR series 6XT isn't even DX10 compliant! Porting between the PS4 and Nintendo's new NX is a lot less trivial than you think it is ...
3. What is Apple gonna do about the power consumption issues ?
