What are the raw performance specs of PSVita?
- Thread starter gongo
- Start date
Psvita is the new atari lynx.
great hardware bot low sales and to few games
i'm glad i still own a lynx 1 and i won5 sell my vita even if it fails.
iphone 5 gpu is the same as vita one but with 3 cores instead of 4.
Really, still the too few games comment? It is by far the best first year of a console I've ever heard of in my life ... You must be quite specific in the games you like?
It's nothing like the Lynx in terms of market position though, it's battery actually lasts longer than the competition.
iPhone 5 probably runs at a slightly higher clock? The memory/bandwidth layout for both devices is also really different (Vita has dedicated video memory) though perhaps the end result may actually be quite similar.
Stating that iPhone 5 resolution is way above Vita is also a bit ... exaggerated?
Real Racing, by the way, looks pretty good, but just technically, have you considered comparing it with Ridge Racer or WipeOut on Vita? I'm not so sure Real Racing, technically, looks so much better than that ... if anything, Real Racing hardly has any effects going on.
If it's anything PSV should have in oodles it's memory bandwidth, considering the 1kbit bus to its stacked VRAM it has...
Maybe you're thinking main memory bandwidth? iP5 isn't terribly fantastic in that regard, 64-bit bus at 1066MHz, that's what, 8ish GB/s? Something like that. So for PSV to be significantly LOWER than that it'd have to have unbelievably low performance characteristics. Unlikely. It might not have 1066MHz RAM, but I don't think it's (much) less than 800MHz either; there'd be no real point to skimp too much there methinks.
Also, since it has dedicated VRAM it won't need as much main memory bandwidth to reach comparable performance compared to the iP5.
960 × 544 = 522 240
1152 x 640 = 737 280
difference = 737 280 - 522 240 = 215 040
215 040 / 522 240 = 0,411764706
0,411764706 * 100 = 41,2% resolution increase. In my book, that is what we call "way above". Imagine if you had 40% more salary
Seriously though, I can understand Wipeout having a lot going on, but Ridge Racer? Compared to the real racing game it doesn't have environmental reflections, incar view (very detailed, shadows, lot's of polygons), working rear mirrors, environment detail.
Plus Ridge Racer is not even running at native PSV resolution. And no, I am not butthurt to have paid 20 Euro for the PSN version, only to realise the extended "free gold pass" period only applied to the US PSN version and not the EU one
I understand your point but I am sure that you never held a PSVita in your hand with Ridge Racer (pre patch) playing on it, running well below native screen resolution, dropping frames all over the place. Not even featuring shadows or reflections.
On paper the PSVita should be a beast, I agree on that. (even though we don't know anything beyond the CPU/GPU architecture, number of cores, and memory)
960 × 544 = 522 240
1152 x 640 = 737 280
difference = 737 280 - 522 240 = 215 040
215 040 / 522 240 = 0,411764706
0,411764706 * 100 = 41,2% resolution increase. In my book, that is what we call "way above". Imagine if you had 40% more salary
Seriously though, I can understand Wipeout having a lot going on, but Ridge Racer? Compared to the real racing game it doesn't have environmental reflections, incar view (very detailed, shadows, lot's of polygons), working rear mirrors, environment detail.
Plus Ridge Racer is not even running at native PSV resolution. And no, I am not butthurt to have paid 20 Euro for the PSN version, only to realise the extended "free gold pass" period only applied to the US PSN version and not the EU one
When it comes to resolution, I do not think 40% is a massive difference (especially at those .pitch levels). When it comes to salary, whole different story.
Well no, I wasn't saying that Ridge Racer has a lot going on, but it does have some speed blur effects and such - I'm only saying this based on youtube videos I've seen though, which had a decent framerate so maybe patch helped - and it looked at least as good in terms of environments and cars and such as Real Racing, and with the cars going around the track at a *way* higher speed. Don't forget Real Racing is the third version of that game on the iOS platform too, so it's not ... unoptimised.
I guess in general though we can just be jealous that no racing game like this is on the horizon for the Vita, probably because no-one wants to compete with GT, even if everyone is forgetting that GT isn't likely to be out for a loong time and there would be a lot of potential buyers in the mean-time. I would actually be quite interested if the Real Racing guys ported their game, to see if I'd like the game with better control options ...
First game we get to look forward with cars I guess is going to be Most Wanted 2.
Will be surprised if the Vita version launches day and date ... but yeah, completely forgotten about that one.
This is actually a good list:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=472361
There was also the F1 2011 game I'd already forgotten about, but I don't remember that looking very great. Wonder if the 2012 version gets a Vita release - probably later, because the 2011 was out this year.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Just my opinion but I think it's a shame that Ridge Racer Vita is only 30fps...I'm hoping the next one is 60fps.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pre-patch? as in they fixed some or all of the complaints?
Then what the fucking hell are you going on about?
The patch only fixed the framedrops and added a stronger blur-AA so the lower than native resolution is not as apparent
Based on the hardware specs it should run have run the game even un-optimised at >60 fps with full res. Especially given the 'fact' that the Vita should be really easy to program for.
"Unoptimized code," as a term, can literally mean any code that isn't 100% optimized for speed and speed alone. It's far too vague. You could easily write an unoptimized game that would refuse to run at an acceptable speed on a GTX 680/7970 and a Core i7-3960X with low grade visuals(Let's say 2003 stuff like KOTOR1, which was a fairly good looking game on the PC at the time) and logic for god's sakes.
You're speaking in over generalizations, using far too vague terms, and using those to make judgments about hardware you don't understand.
Plus, the fact that they fixed the frame drops should prove you to an extent wrong. You're not thinking your position through.
Besides, look at the original, for example, PS2 games VS stuff that came out in the last few years of it being a major platform(2005-2007 or 8_). Massive difference.
You're speaking in over generalizations, using far too vague terms, and using those to make judgments about hardware you don't understand.
Plus, the fact that they fixed the frame drops should prove you to an extent wrong. You're not thinking your position through.
Besides, look at the original, for example, PS2 games VS stuff that came out in the last few years of it being a major platform(2005-2007 or 8_). Massive difference.
The fillrate results in anandtech's article give a clear indication on the frequencies:
iPhone4S = SGX543MP2, 4 TMUs = 769.6 MTexels/s = 200MHz * 4 TMUs
iPad3 = SGX543MP4, 8 TMUs = 1784 MTexels/s = 250MHz * 8 TMUs
iPhone5 = SGX543MP3, 6 TMUs = 1675 MTexels/s = ~325MHz * 6 TMUs
(in fact the most recent offscreen fillrate result of the iPhon5 is at 1796 MTexels/s)
All so far indications for the SGX543MP4 in the PS Vita point at at a frequency of 200MHz, which is also a quite reasonable frequency considering that the Vita is manufactured under Samsung's 45nm. The A6 in iPhone5 is manufactured on Samsung's 32nm; in terms of on paper GPU power it should be roughly the same as on PS Vita but with the first coming with a quite more powerful CPU despite it being dual core.
Rumors are that Vita cores are clocked at 700 or 800 MHZ.
Vita games like Uncharted or Assassins Creed only use half screen resolution, because the Vita has obviously not enough power.
Nothing has ever enough power.
Hi, any good explanation why so many games especially run with 720x408? Something special about this resolution?
See: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1676698&postcount=4
See: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1676698&postcount=4
problem isnt scaling, its the jaggies, Need for Speed supposedly has 4XAA even running at such low resolution, it looks cleaner than alot of games. Thought still a bit blurry and rough. I think something like Uncharted around 720x408 is sharp and crisp enough, just really need AA really bad. Little Big Planet looks amazing on the device and I believe its sub native but good AA.
They are also ports of existing engines and early releases. More may be possible at native res, though most games sticking to 30fps, it's probably still bandwidth that's the biggest issue? And therefore it may be hard. The tech teardown for Uncharted was interesting, especially where they found detail with polygons was basically cheaper than usng textures.
Similar threads
- Locked
