By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Apple iPhone 5 and Sony Playstation Vita comparison

This thread just misses one point. Touch screen alone is woeful for 95% of games and there is no solution anywhere near as practical as the Vita/3DS control setups.

Just for the records: my phone is a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, I've tried a fair few of the better Android games on it, Dead Space, GTA3/Max Payne etc. Unless the game is good for touch screen only controls, they are a clunky frustrating nightmare to play in comparison to a dedicated hand held.

So you can have your more powerful processors etc. I'll have the better control configurations.



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Around the Network
Shinobi-san said:
Turns out the iPhone 5 does not have a ARM Cortex-A15 cpu.


A link that extends a bit what you said:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6292/iphone-5-a6-not-a15-custom-core



Powerful phones make no sense to me. SIII is one sexy beast though.

I dont think power will effect the games that are developed for IOS neither will it effect the games for the vita. if smart phones are bad for handheld gaming devices then power is not the main cause because it wont shift the gaming development.



MikeRox said:
This thread just misses one point. Touch screen alone is woeful for 95% of games and there is no solution anywhere near as practical as the Vita/3DS control setups.

Just for the records: my phone is a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, I've tried a fair few of the better Android games on it, Dead Space, GTA3/Max Payne etc. Unless the game is good for touch screen only controls, they are a clunky frustrating nightmare to play in comparison to a dedicated hand held.

So you can have your more powerful processors etc. I'll have the better control configurations.

That!

I'm not contradicting or saying that this thread is useless but I personnaly do not see the point of compaing the technical spec of two devices that are not meant to do the same thing. 

The PS Vita is a gaming console and the iPhone is a phone... Yes you can play game on it but this is by no means the same experience than the PS Vita.



MikeRox said:
This thread just misses one point. Touch screen alone is woeful for 95% of games and there is no solution anywhere near as practical as the Vita/3DS control setups.

Just for the records: my phone is a Samsung Galaxy Nexus, I've tried a fair few of the better Android games on it, Dead Space, GTA3/Max Payne etc. Unless the game is good for touch screen only controls, they are a clunky frustrating nightmare to play in comparison to a dedicated hand held.

So you can have your more powerful processors etc. I'll have the better control configurations.

That!

I'm not contradicting or saying that this thread is useless but I personnaly do not see the point of compaing the technical spec of two devices that are not meant to do the same thing. 

The PS Vita is a gaming console and the iPhone is a phone... Yes you can play game on it but this is by no means the same experience than the PS Vita.



Around the Network
Chandler said:
superchunk said:
Chandler said:
But it's not a 200$ phone.


Its not?

Who the hell buys a phone off contract?


Yes, it's not. A huge chunk of the contract is to pay off the phone. Calculations like this make people get into crazy high depts because they onls think about the initial cost and forget about the huge tail.

If someone gets into deep dept over a 2 year contract with a cell-phone company then that's just sad.



People who are complaining about contract costs need to get over it.

Nice prediction SuperChunk!



pezus said:
NintendoPie said:
People who are complaining about contract costs need to get over it.

Nice prediction SuperChunk!

Complaining? Most people are saying it's unfair to not count the contract costs when making a comparison like this.

Yes, complaining. It's totally fair. Why would you count the contract price? All you should count is the retail price.



NintendoPie said:
pezus said:
NintendoPie said:
People who are complaining about contract costs need to get over it.

Nice prediction SuperChunk!

Complaining? Most people are saying it's unfair to not count the contract costs when making a comparison like this.

Yes, complaining. It's totally fair. Why would you count the contract price? All you should count is the retail price.


Although you're paying for your minutes/texts/internet in your monthly tariff. If you get a premium handset, you are paying for the phone in monthly instalments too. My £40 per month contract would have been about £20-25 per month if I didn't get it with a Samsung Galaxy Nexus. We don't pay up front fees for phones in the UK very often on contracts, but you find the more expensive the phone, the higher the monthly linerental in the initial 2 years.

Did I get a free phone? Arguably yes, but I will have paid near enough the full Retail for the handset by the time my contract is over. So this should be included when factoring in the cost (compared with a product that is a one off purchase). Otherwise Apple iPads are free!



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

pezus said:
I wonder why you're even comparing Vita to the iPhone 5, a phone that isn't even the most powerful phone out there apparently. Try Galaxy SIII


Galaxy S3 (which one, the USA, 2 core, or the European one, 4 core) is maybe faster than iPhone5 in the CPU part. The GPU of the S3 is slower, in both versions.