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

I prefer...

3DS 77 77.78%
 
Vita 22 22.22%
 
Total:99
HoangNhatAnh said:
curl-6 said:

Nobody claimed 3DS was less capable than PS2 though.

Not that CPU clockspeed proves that either way as once again, Xbox 360 has a higher CPU clockspeed than the PS4.

And your second link is a question asked on a forum, not an answer. And an answer would be irrelevant anyway because, again, you're arguing a point nobody made.

Look, I can see you're looking for way to avoid backing down by changing the argument, why don't we just move back to the actual thread topic? What's your opinion on 3DS vs Vita?

The answer was from the author of the article. It used all the numbers which showed there.

Bold:

Hardware power: vita, but this video proved 1 thing: if vita is ps 2,5 then 3ds is ps 2,2, not too far.

https://youtu.be/uGx_cscKUGE

Hardware design: right analog >  c stick but r2/l2 buttons > back touchpad. Higher resolution (many vita games are sub native res) vs 3D without glass function (worse screen).

Software: vita has more otome games, fps, indie, 3ds has everything else. RPG: the quantity is very close, but many vita games are ports, remasters, remakes or multi-plats, while 3ds ones are unique and mostly exclusives.

For a portable fans, both. But for a portable/console owner, 3ds + ps4 are better choice since ps4 has many vita games too.

Pemalite said:

The CPU comparison is a bit odd.

The 3DS has a dual-core 266Mhz ARM 11 processor... Which you have listed. However... One ENTIRE CPU core is dedicated to the OS/Background tasks so only a single 266Mhz core is used for gaming.

The Playstation 2's processor however is 295Mhz MIPS processor, but is aided by a separate Floating Point Processor and Two Vector Processors which definitely changes things up. Suddenly it's no longer comparing a dual core 266mhz CPU against a single core 295Mhz CPU.

Where things get a little muddied is the 3DS memory of the equation... 32MB vs 128MB is a no brainer, not only does the 3DS have multiples more DRAM, but it also is backed up by carts or MicroSD which can do 60-80MB/s sustained with low access times compared to the PS2's DVD drive of 5.28MB/s.
That means the 3DS has oodles more texturing capabilities thanks to Streaming. (Streaming didn't just happen because SSD's happened.)

Plus the 3DS has super shading capabilities, I mean... The Gamecube could beat the PS2 on that front thanks to TEV, the Wii is built upon that foundation and the 3DS shader capabilities are a step up over even the Wii.

As for GFLOPS, that doesn't tell us anything about performance, it's theoretical, not real world and should never be used.

But yes, the 3DS is better than the PS2... But no one has said the contrary anyway making this argument redundant.

Bold: yes, but not sure if everyone here think 3ds overall is stronger than ps2.

FTFY. It was one of the central reasons for claiming the reject pile. 



Around the Network

Vita was the better hardware. Loved the way it was built.

However 3DS had the better limited edition consoles and probably more enjoyable games.

It is a tough call for me to make tbh as at heart I love technology and how well it is built regardless of the software library it may have.



 

 

Combine the Vita's hardware design with the 3DS's software and you'd have a winner I reckon; a better quality screen and chipset with more comfortable controls and a second analogue stick, plus Monster Hunter, Nintendo's first parties games-

Shit, I just described the Switch.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 17 April 2021

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

AsGryffynn said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

The answer was from the author of the article. It used all the numbers which showed there.

Bold:

Hardware power: vita, but this video proved 1 thing: if vita is ps 2,5 then 3ds is ps 2,2, not too far.

https://youtu.be/uGx_cscKUGE

Hardware design: right analog >  c stick but r2/l2 buttons > back touchpad. Higher resolution (many vita games are sub native res) vs 3D without glass function (worse screen).

Software: vita has more otome games, fps, indie, 3ds has everything else. RPG: the quantity is very close, but many vita games are ports, remasters, remakes or multi-plats, while 3ds ones are unique and mostly exclusives.

For a portable fans, both. But for a portable/console owner, 3ds + ps4 are better choice since ps4 has many vita games too.

Pemalite said:

The CPU comparison is a bit odd.

The 3DS has a dual-core 266Mhz ARM 11 processor... Which you have listed. However... One ENTIRE CPU core is dedicated to the OS/Background tasks so only a single 266Mhz core is used for gaming.

The Playstation 2's processor however is 295Mhz MIPS processor, but is aided by a separate Floating Point Processor and Two Vector Processors which definitely changes things up. Suddenly it's no longer comparing a dual core 266mhz CPU against a single core 295Mhz CPU.

Where things get a little muddied is the 3DS memory of the equation... 32MB vs 128MB is a no brainer, not only does the 3DS have multiples more DRAM, but it also is backed up by carts or MicroSD which can do 60-80MB/s sustained with low access times compared to the PS2's DVD drive of 5.28MB/s.
That means the 3DS has oodles more texturing capabilities thanks to Streaming. (Streaming didn't just happen because SSD's happened.)

Plus the 3DS has super shading capabilities, I mean... The Gamecube could beat the PS2 on that front thanks to TEV, the Wii is built upon that foundation and the 3DS shader capabilities are a step up over even the Wii.

As for GFLOPS, that doesn't tell us anything about performance, it's theoretical, not real world and should never be used.

But yes, the 3DS is better than the PS2... But no one has said the contrary anyway making this argument redundant.

Bold: yes, but not sure if everyone here think 3ds overall is stronger than ps2.

FTFY. It was one of the central reasons for claiming the reject pile. 

Thank you for that.