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

Forums - Gaming - How does the 3DS compare to the PSP, power wise?

Chark on 21 April 2013
VGKing said:
Chark said:

Not sure how accurate this is, but 3DS is stronger in a variety of ways even if it isn't pushing tech very far.

The PSP has 128 ppi and the 3DS has 237 ppi. As what seems to be Nintendo's calling card, releasing hardware at a marginal increase in performance as a means to provide lower cost of development, even though I'm not sure that always translates, but it atleast provides them with cheaper manufacturing costs to prevent the need to sell at a large loss....well typically.

Really? You added the top and bottom screens resolutions...

I didn't, and that's pretty shotty. those screens have different ppi too. the top screen higher than the Vita even, and at a smaller size. it is too bad the 3ds isnt more powerful.

Side note if people haven't realized, some of Kaizer's numbers and claims are exaggerated. Not all, but we've had debates and numbers flew wild. I think the site he frequents on 3DS is where he gets his ideas. With that said 3DS is better than some might think and easily beats psp.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Around the Network
RazorDragon on 21 April 2013
JoeTheBro said:
RazorDragon said:
JoeTheBro said:
SnowPrince said:
Vita smashin' all !!
Seriously why would you guys even bother ask such questions, PSP and 3DS are not from the same gen, they're not in competition, you should start leaning toward the current gen, or is Vita that DEAD ?


No, the Vita is that POWERFUL! A discussion of how the 3DS compares to the Vita, power wise, would be a joke. One has 4 mb of VRAM, the other has 128...


RAM =/= power. GPU-wise 3DS has shown to be quite powerful and I don't think the gap is that high in this specific matter, considering Resident Evil Revelations, one of the most impressive 3DS titles graphically-wise, is rendered at 800x480 if running in 2D mode(thanks to FSAA) while looking similar to Vita's best. Uncharted Vita, for example, is rendered at 720x408. CPU wise it's an entirely different matter, though, since 3DS's clockspeeds are not known and Vita's CPU uses a new architecture when compared to 3DS's.

My post was mostly a joke. I just quickly cherry picked stats to make the gap look huge.

Also can you give me a link about that Revelations resolution? I tried searching but nowadays everything is cluttered with news of the console ports.


About RE's case, you probably won't find anything about the resolution on Google because, technically, the game is displayed at 400x240, which is 3DS's display resolution. Thanks to FSSA technique(hardware feature of 3DS's GPU), which is supported by every Capcom game on the MT Framework engine when run in 2D mode, the rendering resolution is doubled and the resultant frame is downscaled to match the display resolution, which works to decrease aliasing artifacts(and also as a kind of anisotropic filtering). You're using the same amount of power you would use to make the game run at 800x480 if the game has FSAA enabled.



JoeTheBro on 21 April 2013
RazorDragon said:
JoeTheBro said:
RazorDragon said:
JoeTheBro said:
SnowPrince said:
Vita smashin' all !!
Seriously why would you guys even bother ask such questions, PSP and 3DS are not from the same gen, they're not in competition, you should start leaning toward the current gen, or is Vita that DEAD ?


No, the Vita is that POWERFUL! A discussion of how the 3DS compares to the Vita, power wise, would be a joke. One has 4 mb of VRAM, the other has 128...


RAM =/= power. GPU-wise 3DS has shown to be quite powerful and I don't think the gap is that high in this specific matter, considering Resident Evil Revelations, one of the most impressive 3DS titles graphically-wise, is rendered at 800x480 if running in 2D mode(thanks to FSAA) while looking similar to Vita's best. Uncharted Vita, for example, is rendered at 720x408. CPU wise it's an entirely different matter, though, since 3DS's clockspeeds are not known and Vita's CPU uses a new architecture when compared to 3DS's.

My post was mostly a joke. I just quickly cherry picked stats to make the gap look huge.

Also can you give me a link about that Revelations resolution? I tried searching but nowadays everything is cluttered with news of the console ports.


About RE's case, you probably won't find anything about the resolution on Google because, technically, the game is displayed at 400x240, which is 3DS's display resolution. Thanks to FSSA technique(hardware feature of 3DS's GPU), which is supported by every Capcom game on the MT Framework engine when run in 2D mode, the rendering resolution is doubled and the resultant frame is downscaled to match the display resolution, which works to decrease aliasing artifacts(and also as a kind of anisotropic filtering). You're using the same amount of power you would use to make the game run at 800x480 if the game has FSAA enabled.

Yeah I just didn't know that about the MT Framework having 2XFSAA.



Links

oniyide on 21 April 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
JoeTheBro said:
Also remember that game makers get better with time. Compare launch PSP games with launch 3DS games and you'll see the large improvement.

If only people would remember this when talking about the Wii U, haha.

People do remember, and its still pathetic considering that the games NOW dont look better than games released on systems that came out years ago. Let me put it this way. Launch PS3 games looked better than anything on PS2, Launch PS2 games looked better than anything on PS1(tekken Tag vs. 3 proves this) SNES vs. NES and so. Nothing on Wii U looks better than anything on PS360 and its supposed to be next gen, thats the issue.

That's because every Wii U game so far is either (A) a (mostly lazily done) 360 port, or (B) not graphically ambitious. People act as if these are an accurate demonstration of the system's power, and that it's somehow already maxed out, which is ridiculous. There's not a single game so far that's made by a technically talented team, from the ground up, to be graphically intensive, so nothing we've seen so far is indicative of the console's full capabilities. The Wii took a while to differentiate itself from the Gamecube graphically since early  games were lazy, the same situation is  repeating itself here.

no one ever said it was maxed out. NO ONE. All those consoles I mentioned werent maxed out at launch and they still had games that looked significantly better than the gen prior, so whats Wii U's excuse? And no graphical instensive? Please, Zombi U, Rayman, Lego, all those games could be on WIi. Your right about the WIi, and its going to be a similar situation, it will STILL be a gen behind power wise than the comp. And there isnt anything released on WIi that could not have been done on GC so it still didnt differ itself too much in the end. 

No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. Metroid Prime 3, the Wii COD games from World at War onwards, and Xenoblade couldn't be done on Gamecube, for a start. 

And people imply Wii U is maxed out all the time by claiming current games (lazy ports made on crappy devkits) already show its limits. When people judge Wii U's graphics, they conveniently ignore the fact that consoles improve visually over time. We're not talking about clear gaps at launch, we're talking about the common knowledge that launch games don't show a system's full capacity.

I think you might need your eyes checked, i played those games, and Prime 3 doesnt look that much better than 2 on Cube. THe COD games on Wii look terrible, not that much better than GC FPS. and Xenoblade looks like a slighty better FF12 which was on a system that was weaker than Cube.

No one implies anything, all their saying is that for a next gen console its not looking better than consoles that have been on the market for YEARS which is unsual for a system that is supposed to be a generational leap. WHich for the most part every follow up console (sans Ninty ones recently) have not. We are talking about clear gaps at launch its supposed to be a clear gap agaisnt PS360, it isnt. 



Kaizar on 21 April 2013
Chark said:
VGKing said:
Chark said:

Not sure how accurate this is, but 3DS is stronger in a variety of ways even if it isn't pushing tech very far.

The PSP has 128 ppi and the 3DS has 237 ppi. As what seems to be Nintendo's calling card, releasing hardware at a marginal increase in performance as a means to provide lower cost of development, even though I'm not sure that always translates, but it atleast provides them with cheaper manufacturing costs to prevent the need to sell at a large loss....well typically.

Really? You added the top and bottom screens resolutions...

I didn't, and that's pretty shotty. those screens have different ppi too. the top screen higher than the Vita even, and at a smaller size. it is too bad the 3ds isnt more powerful.

Side note if people haven't realized, some of Kaizer's numbers and claims are exaggerated. Not all, but we've had debates and numbers flew wild. I think the site he frequents on 3DS is where he gets his ideas. With that said 3DS is better than some might think and easily beats psp.

You kept claiming the GPU (PICA200) was 200 MHz at the time. And I kept telling everyone that the GPU was 400 MHz, but no one believe me at the time, which was earlier this year (2013).

I said the 3DS has a 400 MHz GPU and that the PS vita has a 266 MHz GPU. That's what the whole debate on the other thread was about between you & me. It was all arguing about the 3DS 400 MHz GPU vs. the PS Vita 266 MHz GPU. I was just saying that it looks like it wins in GPU against the Vita.



Around the Network
DevilRising on 21 April 2013
theshonen8899 said:
It is always difficult to compare specs of consoles one-to-one given their custom architectures. Comparing RAM is also difficult because system software and memory implementation also varies drastically by console.


And yet fanbos on all sides do exactly that to aruge why their "console is better", year after year. LOL



curl-6 on 21 April 2013
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

no one ever said it was maxed out. NO ONE. All those consoles I mentioned werent maxed out at launch and they still had games that looked significantly better than the gen prior, so whats Wii U's excuse? And no graphical instensive? Please, Zombi U, Rayman, Lego, all those games could be on WIi. Your right about the WIi, and its going to be a similar situation, it will STILL be a gen behind power wise than the comp. And there isnt anything released on WIi that could not have been done on GC so it still didnt differ itself too much in the end. 

No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. Metroid Prime 3, the Wii COD games from World at War onwards, and Xenoblade couldn't be done on Gamecube, for a start. 

And people imply Wii U is maxed out all the time by claiming current games (lazy ports made on crappy devkits) already show its limits. When people judge Wii U's graphics, they conveniently ignore the fact that consoles improve visually over time. We're not talking about clear gaps at launch, we're talking about the common knowledge that launch games don't show a system's full capacity.

I think you might need your eyes checked, i played those games, and Prime 3 doesnt look that much better than 2 on Cube. THe COD games on Wii look terrible, not that much better than GC FPS. and Xenoblade looks like a slighty better FF12 which was on a system that was weaker than Cube.

No one implies anything, all their saying is that for a next gen console its not looking better than consoles that have been on the market for YEARS which is unsual for a system that is supposed to be a generational leap. WHich for the most part every follow up console (sans Ninty ones recently) have not. We are talking about clear gaps at launch its supposed to be a clear gap agaisnt PS360, it isnt. 

Retro Studios have stated that the Wii's extra power and memory allowed Prime 3 to have higher resolution textures, more polygons, bigger environments, and the addition of bloom lighting compared to what was possible on GCN. High Voltage also said that the Conduit games could do more effects at once due to the Wii's increased power over GCN.

And the Wii COD games and Xenoblade are massive memory hogs due to their large, detailed, streaming environments. The Wii had 88MB of RAM. The Gamecube had 40MB. GCN simply wouldn't have had enough memory.

And no, we are not talking about "clear gaps at launch." We were talking about graphical improvements within a system's lifespan. You then tried to derail that discussion.



oniyide on 21 April 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:

no one ever said it was maxed out. NO ONE. All those consoles I mentioned werent maxed out at launch and they still had games that looked significantly better than the gen prior, so whats Wii U's excuse? And no graphical instensive? Please, Zombi U, Rayman, Lego, all those games could be on WIi. Your right about the WIi, and its going to be a similar situation, it will STILL be a gen behind power wise than the comp. And there isnt anything released on WIi that could not have been done on GC so it still didnt differ itself too much in the end. 

No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. Metroid Prime 3, the Wii COD games from World at War onwards, and Xenoblade couldn't be done on Gamecube, for a start. 

And people imply Wii U is maxed out all the time by claiming current games (lazy ports made on crappy devkits) already show its limits. When people judge Wii U's graphics, they conveniently ignore the fact that consoles improve visually over time. We're not talking about clear gaps at launch, we're talking about the common knowledge that launch games don't show a system's full capacity.

I think you might need your eyes checked, i played those games, and Prime 3 doesnt look that much better than 2 on Cube. THe COD games on Wii look terrible, not that much better than GC FPS. and Xenoblade looks like a slighty better FF12 which was on a system that was weaker than Cube.

No one implies anything, all their saying is that for a next gen console its not looking better than consoles that have been on the market for YEARS which is unsual for a system that is supposed to be a generational leap. WHich for the most part every follow up console (sans Ninty ones recently) have not. We are talking about clear gaps at launch its supposed to be a clear gap agaisnt PS360, it isnt. 

Retro Studios have stated that the Wii's extra power and memory allowed Prime 3 to have higher resolution textures, more polygons, bigger environments, and the addition of bloom lighting compared to what was possible on GCN. High Voltage also said that the Conduit games could do more effects at once due to the Wii's increased power over GCN.

And the Wii COD games and Xenoblade are massive memory hogs due to their large, detailed, streaming environments. The Wii had 88MB of RAM. The Gamecube had 40MB. GCN simply wouldn't have had enough memory.

And no, we are not talking about "clear gaps at launch." We were talking about graphical improvements within a system's lifespan. You then tried to derail that discussion.

Im watching side by side videos and while MP3 does look a bit better, its no where near that much different than MP2 is. Killzone 1 to Killzone2? thats a huge difference. HVS? Those hacks, the same guys that said they made an engine that would make their game look as good as PS360 FPSs those guys are liars. 

COD is memory hog? Since when? its a linear FPS, and even then they had to cut some stuff back. THere were COD games on GC. xenoblade I could see, but even then all they would have to do is reduce draw distance, its not like the game has alot of textures. There were PS2 games that looked like that.

I was talking clear gaps, you want to point to system lifespan that NO one ever argued agaisnt. YOu never addressed my points about most generational leaps are apparent on day one, so you probably agree with that.



Kynes on 21 April 2013

Reading this type of threads is worse for my brain than a bad hangover.



DigitalDevilSummoner on 21 April 2013

don't care how powerful it is. all i know is that MegaTen 4 will have 2D battles...

 ...2-FREAKING-D BATORU