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

Forums - Nintendo - PSP vs 3DS specs rd1

lilbroex on 30 September 2012
curl-6 said:
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
Revelations in 2D > Anything on PSP, let alone in 3D.
If the devs behind that game made a 3DS game with no 3D, specifically to push graphics, it would probably look closer to Vita than PSP.


Where have people gotten this idea that the 3D feature is this huge astronoical drain? Developing a game without it would double the polygon pushing power at most which would still leave it a good ways short of reaching GC numbers. Though honestly, it seems that the way they did the 3D isn't as taxing as people make it out to be.

I'd be surprised if the handheld got even a 1.5 increase in graphical bandwith. It would still be feature limited as the Vita uses Shader Modal 3.0 and the 3DS uses shader modal 1.1 besides Vita having 4 times as much RAM. The resolution will still have the same internal limit which is lower than Vita's. Then we are talking 2 core cpu versus 4 core.

The 3DS pushing games that perform even halfway close to Vita's average games is just never going to happen.

"Look" was the operative word. No, it won't compete with Vita specs-wise, but the shading capabilities will give its appearance a quality closer to the Vita than the shader-light PSP, even at a lower resolution, just like their are Gamecube/Wii games that look more similar to a PS3/360 game n SD than a PS2 game thanks to shaders.

 

lilbroex said:
Getting a 55.55% increase in pixels will do just that. Its not going to expand the shading capabilities, the avaiable RAM, the potential of the processor that isn't used to do 3D(I forget whether it is the 2 core CPU or GPU that processed the 3D effect in the 3DS), polygon count,framerate and all of the other factors.

 

Turning 3D on/off in current games already affects the framerate.

 

Shader Modal 1.1 and 3.0 are miles apart. I'm not even going to getting the difference that the RAM will make. You won't be seeing Parallax mapping on the 3DS.

 

That sounds more like lack of optimization, but that things like a small increase in frame rate are the only things you will get with th3 3D turned off. Its not going to turn the 3DS into a supercomputer. You will see around a 10% increase in graphical performance.



Around the Network
curl-6 on 01 October 2012
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
Revelations in 2D > Anything on PSP, let alone in 3D.
If the devs behind that game made a 3DS game with no 3D, specifically to push graphics, it would probably look closer to Vita than PSP.


Where have people gotten this idea that the 3D feature is this huge astronoical drain? Developing a game without it would double the polygon pushing power at most which would still leave it a good ways short of reaching GC numbers. Though honestly, it seems that the way they did the 3D isn't as taxing as people make it out to be.

I'd be surprised if the handheld got even a 1.5 increase in graphical bandwith. It would still be feature limited as the Vita uses Shader Modal 3.0 and the 3DS uses shader modal 1.1 besides Vita having 4 times as much RAM. The resolution will still have the same internal limit which is lower than Vita's. Then we are talking 2 core cpu versus 4 core.

The 3DS pushing games that perform even halfway close to Vita's average games is just never going to happen.

"Look" was the operative word. No, it won't compete with Vita specs-wise, but the shading capabilities will give its appearance a quality closer to the Vita than the shader-light PSP, even at a lower resolution, just like their are Gamecube/Wii games that look more similar to a PS3/360 game n SD than a PS2 game thanks to shaders.

 

lilbroex said:
Getting a 55.55% increase in pixels will do just that. Its not going to expand the shading capabilities, the avaiable RAM, the potential of the processor that isn't used to do 3D(I forget whether it is the 2 core CPU or GPU that processed the 3D effect in the 3DS), polygon count,framerate and all of the other factors.

 

Turning 3D on/off in current games already affects the framerate.

 

Shader Modal 1.1 and 3.0 are miles apart. I'm not even going to getting the difference that the RAM will make. You won't be seeing Parallax mapping on the 3DS.

 

That sounds more like lack of optimization, but that things like a small increase in frame rate are the only things you will get with th3 3D turned off. Its not going to turn the 3DS into a supercomputer. You will see around a 10% increase in graphical performance.

You'll see normal mapping though, which already makes Revelations look more Vita-esque than PSP-esque.



oni-link on 01 October 2012

As long as the 3DS is more powerful than the PSP I am happy!!! Now how much more powerful IS THE BIG QUESTION!!!



DieAppleDie on 01 October 2012

2 times as powerful as the PSP



oni-link on 01 October 2012
DieAppleDie said:
2 times as powerful as the PSP


at the very least seeing it has 4x more development/actual RAM than the original PSP and twice the most current PSP.



Around the Network
oni-link on 01 October 2012
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
Revelations in 2D > Anything on PSP, let alone in 3D.
If the devs behind that game made a 3DS game with no 3D, specifically to push graphics, it would probably look closer to Vita than PSP.


Where have people gotten this idea that the 3D feature is this huge astronoical drain? Developing a game without it would double the polygon pushing power at most which would still leave it a good ways short of reaching GC numbers. Though honestly, it seems that the way they did the 3D isn't as taxing as people make it out to be.

I'd be surprised if the handheld got even a 1.5 increase in graphical bandwith. It would still be feature limited as the Vita uses Shader Modal 3.0 and the 3DS uses shader modal 1.1 besides Vita having 4 times as much RAM. The resolution will still have the same internal limit which is lower than Vita's. Then we are talking 2 core cpu versus 4 core.

The 3DS pushing games that perform even halfway close to Vita's average games is just never going to happen.

"Look" was the operative word. No, it won't compete with Vita specs-wise, but the shading capabilities will give its appearance a quality closer to the Vita than the shader-light PSP, even at a lower resolution, just like their are Gamecube/Wii games that look more similar to a PS3/360 game n SD than a PS2 game thanks to shaders.

 

lilbroex said:
Getting a 55.55% increase in pixels will do just that. Its not going to expand the shading capabilities, the avaiable RAM, the potential of the processor that isn't used to do 3D(I forget whether it is the 2 core CPU or GPU that processed the 3D effect in the 3DS), polygon count,framerate and all of the other factors.

 

Turning 3D on/off in current games already affects the framerate.

 

Shader Modal 1.1 and 3.0 are miles apart. I'm not even going to getting the difference that the RAM will make. You won't be seeing Parallax mapping on the 3DS.

 

That sounds more like lack of optimization, but that things like a small increase in frame rate are the only things you will get with th3 3D turned off. Its not going to turn the 3DS into a supercomputer. You will see around a 10% increase in graphical performance.


good comparison by IGN   http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/10/01/3ds-graphics-old-vs-new



lilbroex on 01 October 2012
oni-link said:
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
lilbroex said:
curl-6 said:
Revelations in 2D > Anything on PSP, let alone in 3D.
If the devs behind that game made a 3DS game with no 3D, specifically to push graphics, it would probably look closer to Vita than PSP.


Where have people gotten this idea that the 3D feature is this huge astronoical drain? Developing a game without it would double the polygon pushing power at most which would still leave it a good ways short of reaching GC numbers. Though honestly, it seems that the way they did the 3D isn't as taxing as people make it out to be.

I'd be surprised if the handheld got even a 1.5 increase in graphical bandwith. It would still be feature limited as the Vita uses Shader Modal 3.0 and the 3DS uses shader modal 1.1 besides Vita having 4 times as much RAM. The resolution will still have the same internal limit which is lower than Vita's. Then we are talking 2 core cpu versus 4 core.

The 3DS pushing games that perform even halfway close to Vita's average games is just never going to happen.

"Look" was the operative word. No, it won't compete with Vita specs-wise, but the shading capabilities will give its appearance a quality closer to the Vita than the shader-light PSP, even at a lower resolution, just like their are Gamecube/Wii games that look more similar to a PS3/360 game n SD than a PS2 game thanks to shaders.

 

lilbroex said:
Getting a 55.55% increase in pixels will do just that. Its not going to expand the shading capabilities, the avaiable RAM, the potential of the processor that isn't used to do 3D(I forget whether it is the 2 core CPU or GPU that processed the 3D effect in the 3DS), polygon count,framerate and all of the other factors.

 

Turning 3D on/off in current games already affects the framerate.

 

Shader Modal 1.1 and 3.0 are miles apart. I'm not even going to getting the difference that the RAM will make. You won't be seeing Parallax mapping on the 3DS.

 

That sounds more like lack of optimization, but that things like a small increase in frame rate are the only things you will get with th3 3D turned off. Its not going to turn the 3DS into a supercomputer. You will see around a 10% increase in graphical performance.


good comparison by IGN   http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/10/01/3ds-graphics-old-vs-new

Nah, not really. Thats a bullshot comparison and its not comparing what I was talking about.

Thats not much better than that early MGS comparison where people were using the tech demo screenshots against bullshots of Peace Walker, MGS3 for the PS2 and a horrid Twin Snakes Screenshot.



DieAppleDie on 01 October 2012

2 times the power
counting the use of the second screen and the 3D effect



Viper1 on 01 October 2012

I want to bring to light one factor that is almost never considered in screen shot comparisons: The source image format and compression.

All SDK's and debut units have a built in image capture system for publishers to send out screenshots. Nintendo was notorious for using an image capture system that automatically compressed the hell out of the images. They did this because print media and early online media needed the lower resolution and small file size images.

Sony's SDK's and debug kits didn't have a built in file compression system.

MS took it one step further by having the Xbox SDK and debug unit output in their proprietary .bmp format. So images were pristine.

But because of the latter two systems looking so clear, it also made graphic flaws very obvious. Publishers began touching up the images to hide those flaws and that eventually lead to the "bullshots" problem.

So anytime you compare pre-Wii U (they finally fixed the issue even though most publishers started using their own direct video feeds to grab screenshots with the Wii) screens with competitor systems, you may not only be getting a comparison of bullshots, as most of us are already familiar with, but a comparison of image file types and compression systems.



The rEVOLution is not being televised