What are the raw performance specs of PSVita?

So "FSB" (I doubt this is a good term for such an SoC but notwithstanding) is 55-222MHz and CPU is 41-444MHz? That's pretty weird.

He made some other comments here, they seem to check out: https://www.reddit.com/r/vita/comments/3hchqr/vita_cpu_clock_speed_is_333_mhz_by_default/

333MHz was measured using cycle counters vs timers. So assuming the cycle counter isn't missing a multiplier (and it shouldn't if it's the standard counter on Cortex-A9) it checks out.

There was a Cortex-A9 SoC out around Vita's time by AFAIK Renesas that also had a very low clock speed, something like 500MHz. Maybe they went with an LP process and just didn't optimize layout for performance at all.

I wonder if - assuming Vita has PSP hardware - the Allegrex clock speed is synchronous with the Cortex-A9 clock speeds.

If I remember the PSP's MIPS ran 1-333Mhz or something like that,where initially it was limited to 222Mhz by the SDK (to preserve battery) but later 333Mhz was allowed as well.
 
If I remember the PSP's MIPS ran 1-333Mhz or something like that,where initially it was limited to 222Mhz by the SDK (to preserve battery) but later 333Mhz was allowed as well.

Not much of a redesign would be needed to allow going to 444MHz instead. A couple node shrinks would definitely get them there, and they'd surely want that anyway.
 
Not much of a redesign would be needed to allow going to 444MHz instead. A couple node shrinks would definitely get them there, and they'd surely want that anyway.
Sony won't up clocks only for new models. All PSP's can run at 333MHz.

I think 444 mode (if it is indeed the upper clock) in Vita is available without Wi-Fi working (some games disable it for extra performance).
 
Is there a chance that during web browsing the Vita allows a single core to clock towards 888MHz, for example?
I just find it very weird that Javascript is running unbelievably fast on a 444MHz Cortex A9.
 
Not sure if I should bump this old thread but how close is Vita's performance to that of Ps3/360/Wuu ?
I'm looking at titles like Resistance/Uncharted/Killzone and wondering am I wrong for being impressed ?
 
Not sure if I should bump this old thread but how close is Vita's performance to that of Ps3/360/Wuu ?
I'm looking at titles like Resistance/Uncharted/Killzone and wondering am I wrong for being impressed ?

CPU-wise 4x444MHz Cortex-A9 (3x that are really useful for games) is way behind all three of those. The only place where it really picks up at all is in integer SIMD vs Wii U and even in tasks where that makes a huge difference it's still probably not enough to overcome the massive clock delta.

I still find the CPU revelation shocking but with everything said it's even harder to believe that the people who found it got it wrong.

GPU-wise it's also quite a bit behind any of those three, although maybe not as far behind. It's hard to say exactly.
 
so vita is a slow, battery consuming, no game, game device :(

btw im still on old firmware because i keep WAITING for proper "no fuzz" homebrew. But it never came. the closest one is Rejuevenate.

Luckily, Sony still allow their Activation Server to be reached :) so all my PS Plus game when expire, still can re-activate with WiFi, despite using very old FW
 
so vita is a slow, battery consuming, no game, game device :(

Outside of the "no game" part that's pretty much like 3DS, only that has significantly worse CPU and GPU power while not having significantly better battery life (at least if we're talking about the original one).
 
3DS hardware is totally sux. It even dont have proper standby low power mode so it drains battery very quick comared to vita in standby
 
For comparison, Samsung released 2 SoCs in 2011 with an actual product (PSV released at Dec 2011 in Japan), Exynos 4210 and 4212. Both are dual core A9 with Mali 400MP4, CPU/GPU clock for 4210 is 1.2-1.4GHz/266MHz and 4212 is 1.5GHz/400MHz. RAM is 6.4GB/s. How is that compare to PSV SoC?
 
I believe performance wise, even with the lower clock, PSV was still one of the fastest mobile SoC that came out at that time frame. They probably could came out with a faster SoC, but the power consumption wouldn't be pretty. Probably the decision to go with 4 cores was more about saving power, thus 4 lower clocked cores.
 
Is there a confirmation on how fast the RAM and VRAM on PSV? The VRAM is definitely much faster vs other mobile hardware at that time, but by how much?
 
Some analysis.
Die photos of the Sony CXD5315GG (left) and Samsung 1-Gb wide I/O SDRAM with bond pad arrays annotated

Close examination reveals that there are 1080 pads in two blocks of 540 (2 sub-blocks of 45 rows of 6 pads), so likely 2 x 512 bit I/O operation, possibly sub-divided into 4 x 128.
Wide I/O bond pad arrays in Sony CXD5315GG (top) and Samsung SDRAM

Last year at ISSCC Samsung described a similar wide I/O DRAM using TSVs [1], claiming a data bandwidth of 12.8 Gb/s, four times the bandwidth of an equivalent LPDDR2 part. I doubt that the authors expected their design to be in a volume consumer device before the end of the year, but that seems to be what happened!
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cacheo_OwFhI8NyfHwJ:ww3.chipworks.com/cn/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/sonys-ps-vita-uses-chip-on-chip-sip-3d-but-not-3d/+&cd=1
 
11v4l1l.jpg


https://twitter.com/tyronerodriguez/status/667557681670942721
This post spawned my question for anyone who was/is curious

Tony Rodriguez is the developer behind Binding Isaac
 
Back
Top