What is the full hardware specs for Nintendo DS?

[Guden Oden]

All I've ever seen is the not very enlightening official nintendo stuff, but what are the REAL, COMPLETE specs? Who designed the 3D hardware for example? Is it even hardware by the way, or is it a software renderer?

What about sound specs?

Etc.

[Teasy]

I don't know who designed the 3D hardware inside DS but it definitely is a proper 3D graphics chip and not software rendering. It has a fillrate of 30 million pixels per second and also includes a hardware T&L unit capable of 4 million vertices per second (though there seems to be a display limit per scanline). The T&L unit has a configurable matrix processor so it is programable. On the downside its limited to integer ops rather then floats, though I've been told that's not a massive deal. The graphics chip also supports proprietary texture compression though I don't know what kind of compression ratio it uses.

That's all I can think of right now, I don't have a complete spec sheet. But if you want to ask anything else then go ahead and I'll see if I can find out.

BTW sound is handled by the 33Mhz ARM7, that's all I know as far as sound specs go.

[akira888]

Both the GTE on the PSX and the RSP on the N64 were fixed-point as well. The GTE couldn't even screen map vertices with subpixel accuracy - this is why triangle edges on PSX move rather choppily.

[Megadrive1988]

don't know who designed the 3D hardware in the DS.

keep in mind, that DS can only handle 120,000 textured, z-buffered, gouraud shaded, lit polygons per second. this is less than Nintendo64, the Sega Model2 board,
the Namco System22 board, the Sony Playstation, the Sony/Namco System11 board,
Videologic's PowerVR PCX1, and the 3Dfx Voodoo1.

DS' 3D graphics capabilities are.... well, we are talking about 3D roughly on par with a Rendition Verite V1000, one of the the earliest good 3D chips for PCs, which came out before 3Dfx Voodoo.

DS's 3D capabilities are extremely minimal, so don't let the 4 million vertices per second calculation speed fool you. that's like PS2's 66M or PSP's 33M or Xbox's 116M

[akira888]

Well, at least the Verite V1000 had hardware bilinear filtering, even if it was often slower than software rendering on (for then) high end CPUs.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why Nintendo skimped so badly on the DS's rendering capability. MBX was unveiled to the public in way back in the archaic era of Q2 2001; Nintendo should have seen the writing on the wall. Oh well.

[mech]

Nintendo always skimps on the hardware. Look at how underpowered the GBC and GBA were when they came out.

[Skrying]

Nintendo always skimps on the hardware. Look at how underpowered the GBC and GBA were when they came out.

Well yeah, but look how well they all sold and think about the profit margin on those things? Amazing....

[kopio0]

Well at least they improved the color palette to 4k, supports sprite blending (if ndslib is correct). think monster 2D. or handheld super neogeo..

[Shifty Geezer]

Historically, as I think Nintendo have said, they've beat of many a more powerful competitor with less powerful hardware. Power is not the only thing people look for in a gaming product. As we can see the masses don't seem to mind, DS outselling PSP consistently (in Japan anyway. I haven't seen figures for elsewhere).

As for reasons though, I'm a subscriber to the 'rush job' theory that they just wanted something new to go head-to-head with PSP. I don't think they've put much into RnD at all into their handheld sector. Look at their latest offering. People were anticipating a portable GC level of spec at E3 and instead we get yet another GBA.

[Nappe1]

In hand helds, it's all about the playability. (Heck, even first generation cell phones with games sold like hot cakes, though worm game was only included one.) when mainstream players are playing with hand held, they want usually kill some time. NOT experience 15 minutes of HyperMultimedia and WOW effect with strenght of lightning.

My first hand held game will most likely to be Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe for PocketPC. :) Why? No 3D Graphics? No Blood? no violence? yep, not any of those, but it's darn good time eater. :)

[mech]

Well yeah, but look how well they all sold and think about the profit margin on those things? Amazing....

Oh yeah, I'm not saying it hasn't worked for them, their strategy has paid off handsomely, but it's irritated me a lot as a consumer.

In hand helds, it's all about the playability. (Heck, even first generation cell phones with games sold like hot cakes, though worm game was only included one.) when mainstream players are playing with hand held, they want usually kill some time. NOT experience 15 minutes of HyperMultimedia and WOW effect with strenght of lightning.

Playability includes hardware though. More powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences, but most importantly, the screen and lighting of a handheld is SO IMPORTANT. I NEVER played my GBA because I just found it so impossible to get the right angle/light combination so it wasn't like just looking into a mirror.

[Teasy]

Megadrive1988

Yeah I've heard that there is a 120,000 polygon per second display limit per screen. But that's not really comparable to peak numbers for those other chips you mentioned. For instance the Playstation could transform 1.5 million raw polygons at peak (DS can transforn 4 million peak). But it rarely reached near 90,000 displayable polygons per second in its best looking games (N64 was slightly more then that). DS should get extremely close to its display limit since its transform limit is so much higher (4 million pps vs 120,000 pps). Also because of this there should be a lot more that developers can do with each polygon and a lot more room for overdraw then with those other chips.

[Nappe1]

Playability includes hardware though. More powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences, but most importantly, the screen and lighting of a handheld is SO IMPORTANT. I NEVER played my GBA because I just found it so impossible to get the right angle/light combination so it wasn't like just looking into a mirror.

Sure thing.

anyways, my point was that I am not 100% sure Sony really knew what ppl want for hand held gaming when they designed PSP. Of course prettier graphics IS a good thing, but if that used more time for graphics is taken from playability and fresh ideas, then it's a bad thing.

Somehow, though it's not the only reason, I find that ernomous 3D power that develops way faster than games, has been killed off innovation from PC games. If you look at the PC games 5 to 10 years ago, there was much more variation in genres and lot's of new fresh ideas. Even the market was smaller but still publishers were more willing to take risks.

anyways, PSP is still the first hand held gaming device that gave me moment of "I want one!", but again, this idea came from game coming up for it. Not from it's "power in pocket" ideology. :)


What game it was?? umm... don't laugh... it was The Lemmings. :D (There's no doubt Lemmings able to run in DS as well, if there would be version for it. So, games makes the difference, as long as hardware is ok. ;) )

[Shifty Geezer]

Lemmings does sound well suited ot the platform, as does the upcoming Worms. They've ditched the modern 3D and gone back to good old easy to control 2D. That should be one well worth playing, only I hope they include the PC like napalm burning through the scenery.

[see colon]

Playability includes hardware though. More powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences, but most importantly, the screen and lighting of a handheld is SO IMPORTANT. I NEVER played my GBA because I just found it so impossible to get the right angle/light combination so it wasn't like just looking into a mirror.
powerfull hardware can lead to more rewarding gameplay, but it's often not the case. in fact, i bet many people would disagree with you completely on that point (retrogamers and the like). historicly videogame companies who brag about how much better their technology is fall out of the hardware buisness rather quickly. 3do and atari (with the jaguar) were quick to point out their technological superiority to the snes and genesis, sega spent alot of time with both the saturn and the dramcast touting their unbridaled strength compared to the competition (they also did it with the sega CD and 32x)...

anyway, point being that technology doesn't equal rewarding gameplay. software is what determines that in the end. nintendo has had a long history of hitting the right spot in terms of having technology competant enough to allow a broad range of gameplay. the ds isn't any different.

given what i know about your tastes, mech, i find it funny that you complain about the reflectivity of the GBA but have a clear love for the psp. my psp has an extreamly glossy screen, and i find that to make it very angle dependent, especialy in daylight.

[mech]

powerfull hardware can lead to more rewarding gameplay, but it's often not the case. in fact, i bet many people would disagree with you completely on that point (retrogamers and the like). historicly videogame companies who brag about how much better their technology is fall out of the hardware buisness rather quickly. 3do and atari (with the jaguar) were quick to point out their technological superiority to the snes and genesis, sega spent alot of time with both the saturn and the dramcast touting their unbridaled strength compared to the competition (they also did it with the sega CD and 32x)...

EVERYONE brags about the power of their hardware. A lot of these old school people you're talking about would have said the SNES was awesome - and at the time, it had MUCH better graphics than Megadrive/Genesis, and Nintendo made sure people knew about it. Sony touted the power of the Playstation 2 over Dreamcast - plenty of awesome games there. Microsoft bragged and bragged about how much more powerful Xbox was than the competition - they came second this gen, are definitely NOT out of the business, and have heaps of awesome games. Your argument is a mess.

Without the extra power we couldn't have had games like GTA3. GTA3 isn't possible on a DS but is on a PSP.

given what i know about your tastes, mech, i find it funny that you complain about the reflectivity of the GBA but have a clear love for the psp. my psp has an extreamly glossy screen, and i find that to make it very angle dependent, especialy in daylight.

I haven't had any problems viewing my PSP screen.

[darkblu]

sorry, mech, but it's your argument that's a mess. i can tell you that as an owner of both psp and ds. and if you don't take my word for it just check the handhelds sale charts.

[mech]

darkblu: If you'd care to point out where you disagree with what I've said, then actually do so rather than post vague statements that achieve nothing.

And what do sales charts have to do with anything I've said in this thread? If anything they back up what I've said (that Nintendo's strategy has made them a lot of money in the handheld space).

[see colon]

EVERYONE brags about the power of their hardware
i was talking about companies who's marketing strategy almost solely "our technology is superior". the industry is full of examples. 3do did it, apple did it, atari did it (with the jaguar) and it didn't work. sure, sony hyped up the ps2, and quickly changed tactics as soon as they got some worthy software. the same tactic worked for nintendo with the snes. more powerful hardware doesn't automatically equal better games, it's a time proven fact.

Without the extra power we couldn't have had games like GTA3. GTA3 isn't possible on a DS but is on a PSP.
...
i'm really not sure what you're getting at here. games like driver 1&2 and die hard trilogy (the driving parts) show that mission based, drive anywhere type games are capable on hardware as archaic as the ps1. hell, driver 2 got ported to the GBA and was pretty gameplay intact, all things considering. what's so special about GTA3's gameplay that i couldn't be done on the DS? the DS has already proven itself at least as competent as ps1.

[darkblu]

And what do sales charts have to do with anything I've said in this thread? If anything they back up what I've said (that Nintendo's strategy has made them a lot of money in the handheld space).

salecharts show one simple thing - that fact that the consumer does not equate 'power' to gameplay experience. and the vendors are well aware of that, to the point that some of them actually exploit that fact.

[macabre]

i find it funny that you complain about the reflectivity of the GBA but have a clear love for the psp. my psp has an extreamly glossy screen, and i find that to make it very angle dependent, especialy in daylight.

I think he refered to the 1st gen GBA without backlight.

[mech]

i was talking about companies who's marketing strategy almost solely "our technology is superior". the industry is full of examples. 3do did it, apple did it, atari did it (with the jaguar) and it didn't work. sure, sony hyped up the ps2, and quickly changed tactics as soon as they got some worthy software. the same tactic worked for nintendo with the snes. more powerful hardware doesn't automatically equal better games, it's a time proven fact.

Funny, because like I said, many companies' marketing strategies DID depend on their superior hardware, and it helped them succeed. Sony's assertion that PS2 was much, much more powerful than the Dreamcast did wonders for them - it killed the Dreamcast, and the PS2 had few killer titles in its first year, but still managed to do well. Like I said, Xbox was marketing on its superior hardware. Not sure how you can say the 3D0 or Dreamcast had significantly different tactics to these guys. If you'd care to elaborate though, feel free.

At any rate, I never said more powerful hardware automatically equalled better games. What I said was:

More powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences

If you disagree with this, then all you need to do is look at a PC XT, or Atari 2600 and compare it to today's computers and consoles to see how much more powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences.

...
i'm really not sure what you're getting at here. games like driver 1&2 and die hard trilogy (the driving parts) show that mission based, drive anywhere type games are capable on hardware as archaic as the ps1. hell, driver 2 got ported to the GBA and was pretty gameplay intact, all things considering. what's so special about GTA3's gameplay that i couldn't be done on the DS? the DS has already proven itself at least as competent as ps1.

Neither of the games you mention have worlds as big or as rich or restriction free as in GTA3. DS could not support a 3D world in the same calibre as GTA3's.

salecharts show one simple thing - that fact that the consumer does not equate 'power' to gameplay experience. and the vendors are well aware of that, to the point that some of them actually exploit that fact.

Read above. You guys are misconstruing my original statement. Your final statement is actually agreeing with what I've written.

I think he refered to the 1st gen GBA without backlight.

Yep. If he realised that and is comparing the difficulty in seeing the GBA screen to the PSP one, he's on another planet.

[see colon]

Yep. If he realised that and is comparing the difficulty in seeing the GBA screen to the PSP one, he's on another planet.
nope, i'm on this planet. maybe it's not as sunny where you are, but i find the psp to be difficult to see in high light situations. the darker it is the better it looks. you specificly mentioned that looking at a GBA screen was like looking at a mirror. the highly relective plastic on the psp does the same thing in high light situations.

Sony's assertion that PS2 was much, much more powerful than the Dreamcast did wonders for them - it killed the Dreamcast, and the PS2 had few killer titles in its first year, but still managed to do well.
sony's claims of technical superiority disapeared after about a year (when they got real competition from microsoft and nintendo). strangly, sega dropped out of the hardware race about the same time, when sony began marketing GAMES (live in your world, play in ours). ads weren't showing off the hardware, they were showing GAMES, followed by the ps2 sound and logo. this is a far cry from what i'm talking about. for the saturn, almost every ad bragged about "three 32bit proccessors", atari marked the jaguar bragging about "64bit" and "do the math" in every ad, and 3do had ads with flames shooting out of peoples heads beacus the system was so fast and "real". these things were in almost every ad for these systems (print, tv, ect).

Like I said, Xbox was marketing on its superior hardware.
i can't believe you are actualy using this as your argument. you might thing that the xbox was a successfull piece of hardware, but in fact it was a failure in terms of installed base, software sales, and profit compared to sony. had any other company been behind the xbox they would have folded, or at very least closed their console devision years ago. you're talking about a piece of hardware that wasn't ever supposed to make money.

If you disagree with this, then all you need to do is look at a PC XT, or Atari 2600 and compare it to today's computers and consoles to see how much more powerful hardware can lead to more rewarding game experiences.
it can, but doesn't always. i'd rather play kaboom on the VCS than play daikatana on a modern PC. i prefer lemmings on the amiga to lemmings 3d on the pc. and i'd much rather play legend of zelda on the nes than shinning wisdom on the saturn.

[mech]

nope, i'm on this planet. maybe it's not as sunny where you are, but i find the psp to be difficult to see in high light situations. the darker it is the better it looks. you specificly mentioned that looking at a GBA screen was like looking at a mirror. the highly relective plastic on the psp does the same thing in high light situations.

I'll give you this - I don't play the PSP outside much, so I can't offer an opinion on that. But then I don't play any videogames outside - if I'm outside, I'm generally enjoying the outdoors :)

sony's claims of technical superiority disapeared after about a year (when they got real competition from microsoft and nintendo). strangly, sega dropped out of the hardware race about the same time, when sony began marketing GAMES (live in your world, play in ours). ads weren't showing off the hardware, they were showing GAMES, followed by the ps2 sound and logo. this is a far cry from what i'm talking about. for the saturn, almost every ad bragged about "three 32bit proccessors", atari marked the jaguar bragging about "64bit" and "do the math" in every ad, and 3do had ads with flames shooting out of peoples heads beacus the system was so fast and "real". these things were in almost every ad for these systems (print, tv, ect).

Riiiiiiiiight. And so Sony's hype about "emotion engines" and total trashing of the Saturn for technical prowess don't count as them pushing the ability of their machines? I think you're trying to pick and choose things to suit a hypothesis that just isn't sound.


i can't believe you are actualy using this as your argument. you might thing that the xbox was a successfull piece of hardware, but in fact it was a failure in terms of installed base, software sales, and profit compared to sony. had any other company been behind the xbox they would have folded, or at very least closed their console devision years ago. you're talking about a piece of hardware that wasn't ever supposed to make money.

Xbox beat Nintendo this generation and established Microsoft as a major player. Although it lost money for Microsoft, it could hardly be considered a failure. At any rate, your original argument was:

historicly videogame companies who brag about how much better their technology is fall out of the hardware buisness rather quickly

And Microsoft hasn't fallen out of the hardware business at all. Stop trying to change your argument when I refute your original one.

it can, but doesn't always. i'd rather play kaboom on the VCS than play daikatana on a modern PC. i prefer lemmings on the amiga to lemmings 3d on the pc. and i'd much rather play legend of zelda on the nes than shinning wisdom on the saturn.

Did I say it always did? Why are you trying to argue against stuff I never even said?

[see colon]

you know, mech, i getting tired of repeating myself to you. this thread is completely off topic now, and it's obvious we'll never see things the same way. i've only got one comment...

Xbox beat Nintendo this generation and established Microsoft as a major player. Although it lost money for Microsoft, it could hardly be considered a failure.
why are you comparing the xbox to the gamecube? neither console was particularly successfull. do you thing before 3do pulled out of the hardware market they said "well at least we beat the jaguar". compared to the ps2 the xbox (and the gc) were failures in hardware and software sales. on top of that, the xbox was a financial failure.

everything else i've said before and don't care to repeat myself. reply if you want, i'm done posting in this thread.