(09-29-2013, 12:23 PM)garrlker Wrote: [ -> ]I've never researched the subject myself. If I remember right the vita has an arm quad core at 2ghz while the ps3 has1 ppe and 6 spes at 3ghz. I'm not saying the GHZ is what makes it win, but the fact it's using wall power and the vita is on battery power makes me comfortable saying the ps3 is still more powerful cpu wise. Obviously graphics wise the ps3 is more powerful. Many of the 3d games released on the vita aren't running at full resolution. Assassin's Creed LIberation runs at 720x384 (no AA) while all AC games on ps3 run at 720p. I expect mobile graphics on phones and tablets to reach ps3/xbox level in the next year or two but we aren't there yet.
Graphics I personally think have already reached there. Just look at Epic Citadel or Infinity Blade. You can compare them to the best looking PS3 game. Also, most games run at 600 to 720p while you can run android and IOS games at 1080p
But that's the only game on ios that looks that good. Android doesn't have a game that looks that good yet, and also you don't have a free view. It isn't open world. They have it heavily optimized. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but having it open world would be amazing with graphics like that. I want the Dead Space game on ios/android to have graphics like that. And I just don't see an ipad with a retina display having enough bandwidth to run the newest infinity blade fluently. I'm just saying surprising if it does.
(09-29-2013, 01:35 PM)garrlker Wrote: [ -> ]But that's the only game on ios that looks that good. Android doesn't have a game that looks that good yet, and also you don't have a free view. It isn't open world. They have it heavily optimized. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but having it open world would be amazing with graphics like that. I want the Dead Space game on ios/android to have graphics like that. And I just don't see an ipad with a retina display having enough bandwidth to run the newest infinity blade fluently. I'm just saying surprising if it does.
Nova 3 is another game. There's also Wild Blood.
If wiki is correct
133M polys and
3.2*4*.95=12GP/s fillrate for the Vita vs 4.4GP/s and 13.2GT/s for
RSX. Vita's VRAM (64bit LPDDR 1600?) is likey slower than RSX's unless you have really high overdraw giving PVR's TBDR the advantage RSX's should be faster.
I wouldn't be surprised if A9 and Cell weren't that far apart in certain workloads.
I still don't feel we're they're yet. Thanks for the video but with youtube's compression and my parents slow internet I won't be able to see a difference. I still wish there was a game with infinity blades graphics but open world instead of fixed positions. It's pretty easy to control the polygon count when the dev controls the camera angles.
Do remember that the Vita is doing that at much lower resolution compared to the PS3. Just like the PS3 could lower resolution and framerates to show prettier pictures with the same resources, so can anything else.
(09-29-2013, 05:57 PM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]Do remember that the Vita is doing that at much lower resolution compared to the PS3. Just like the PS3 could lower resolution and framerates to show prettier pictures with the same resources, so can anything else.
The reason i wanted to know was to get a feel for how powerful the PS Vita was before I started a project. It's stronger than the PS2 but weaker than the PS3. I thought that but i wanted to confirm it. I also might have found some documentation on the Vita
Depends what component you're talking about. Memory, cpu, gpu, nonvolatile storage. Then once you pick a component you need to pick a specific aspect of that component to compare. That's why comparing these devices is so difficult. You may for example have a system with a faster cpu and more memory but a slower and less flexible GPU. How do you assess whether that system is faster/better?
Overall its specs are extremely similar to a high end smartphone. All three major components are pretty much equivalent to what current high end smartphones have. It's still weaker than a PS3 in all three areas. But not by that much in the areas that actually matter.
DatKid20 Wrote:I think the ipad 4 and snapdragon 600 and 800 devices are on or slightly above PS3 levels.
In what specific regard? Graphical fidelity is determined almost entirely by memory and gpu constraints. The PS3 is without question still superior to any mobile device in both of those areas.
Edit:
garrlker Wrote:If I remember right the vita has an arm quad core at 2ghz
Up to 2GHz. It uses a dynamic clock rate throttling system like most modern cpus.
garrlker Wrote:while the ps3 has1 ppe and 6 spes at 3ghz.
1 PPE at 3.2GHz and 7 SPEs at 1.6GHz. One of which is reserved for the OS.
garrlker Wrote:I'm not saying the GHZ is what makes it win, but the fact it's using wall power and the vita is on battery power makes me comfortable saying the ps3 is still more powerful cpu wise.
CPU wise it depends on how the arm core or SPEs are used by the application. Cell definitely still wins in the singlethreaded race. Multithreaded it depends.
DatKid20 Wrote:Just look at Epic Citadel or Infinity Blade. You can compare them to the best looking PS3 game.
I certainly wouldn't say that.
DatKid20 Wrote:Also, most games run at 600 to 720p while you can run android and IOS games at 1080p
Which means nothing in regards to GPU horsepower.
garrlker Wrote:It's pretty easy to control the polygon count when the dev controls the camera angles.
MaJoR Wrote:Do remember that the Vita is doing that at much lower resolution compared to the PS3. Just like the PS3 could lower resolution and framerates to show prettier pictures with the same resources, so can anything else.
Ding ding ding! We have some winners.
These are the same reasons why tech demos from 2003-2006 often still look better than modern games despite running fluidly on piss poor hardware.