I had a quick look but I couldn't find anywhere with a good break down.
Do we know what the processor is clocked at etc? What's the gpu like?
I'm impressed with launch titles but like many new system games the framerate issues make me sad. Can't wait to see what this thing can do
Results 1 to 25 of 65
Thread: How powerful is vita?
How powerful is vita?WII FRIEND CODE = 5509 0447 7406 7959
ARM® Cortex™- A9 core (4 core)
Approx. 182.0 x 18.6 x 83.5mm (width x height x depth)
(tentative, excludes largest projection)
Screen (Touch Screen)
5 inches (16:9), 960 x 544, Approx. 16 million colors, OLED
Multi touch screen (capacitive type)
Rear Touch Pad
Multi touch pad (capacitive type)
Front camera, Rear camera
Built-in stereo speakers
Six-axis motion sensing system (three-axis gyroscope,
three-axis accelerometer), Three-axis electronic compass
Wi-Fi location service support
Keys / Switches
Directional buttons (Up/Down/Right/Left)
Action buttons (Triangle, Circle, Cross, Square)
Shoulder buttons (Right/Left)
Right stick, Left stick
START button, SELECT button
Volume buttons (+/-)
Mobile network connectivity (3G)
IEEE 802.11b/g/n (n = 1x1)(Wi-Fi)(Infrastructure mode/Ad-hoc mode)
Bluetooth® 2.1+EDR (A2DP/AVRCP/HSP)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Australia, In a Kangaroo's pouch.
- Rep Power
Little Deviants is lag free too. Including the AR games and Ridge Racer.
-[ Over half of the 100~ish UHD Blu-rays on the market ]-
-[ I wouldn't even watch if they came free with my breakfast cereal ]-
i have trouble with modnation
Been trying to peg down where exactly the VITA stands relative to its console brethren. GPU wise it supports quite a few features which RSX can't do- like MSAA + HDR as one example.. I believe it also gets MSAA quite a bit cheaper than RSX too. More or less, GPU side the Vita is very capable.
Some info I dug up:
SGX543: @200Mhz (1 core):
Fillrate: 35 MTriangles, 1000 MPixels
Bus Width: 64bit
These GPU's also scale very well with the addition of each core. Like 95%+.
So multiply those numbers x 4 for what the Vita can output theoretically.
SGX543 @200Mhz (4 core):
Fillrate: 140 MTriangles, 4000 MPixels
Bus Width: 64bit
(no idea what the Gflop measurement actually means, or if I'm missing something regarding the SGX543)
Fillrate: 4,400 Mpixels, ??? MTriangles
Bus Width: 128bit
Especially considering the resolution it renders to is substantially lower than 1280x720p, so that also gives it an edge. In all, I would say that the SGX543 is probably more powerful in most aspects given its target resolution. I could be wrong, anybody with more info please chime in.
This is also assuming the graphics card is only clocked at 200Mhz. It could well be higher by some amount, in which case prospects look all the better!
Vita also has 25% more memory than the PS3.. It should also get other benefits here in relation to its smaller resolution and the fact that it's using super fast carts to stream information (smaller buffers).
So probably where Vita takes the biggest hit is the CPU side of the equation. Without knowing its clock or other benchmarks for sure.. The Quad A9 Cortex probably hovers at or slightly above 10,000 MIPS. As an example the 360 Xenon CPU is at roughly 19,000. But to be entirely honest I am not entirely sure what would make this a proper comparison. I know very little about CPU benchmark metrics vis a vis GPU ones.
If anybody came come out here and help fill in the blanks, that would be much appreciated.
I'm sure that the CPU in the Vita, portable solution not withstanding, has some pretty nifty features that neither console CPU does. If for nothing else because it came years later.
Last edited by Vulgotha; 02-28-2012 at 18:42.
Nerevar likes this post
Hard to fill in the blanks without clock speeds...
Here's some info on the closest thing to the GPU:
Honestly I think the Vita GPU edges out RSX..
"Xbox is about to become the next water cooler”
I didn't expect the RSX to only have a 4000 megapixel fill rate. Anyways, the 140 million vertices/sec is what gave the Vita GPU a lower megaflops rating. But the way these megaflops are measured vary so terribly bad they aren't worth acknowledging. Your attention should just be put on fill rate and vertices/sec.
Neat Fact: Sony originally calculated that the RSX could do 2.0 teraflops, but now they changed up their math to calculate that the RSX can only do 400 megaflops. They never use the same method twice so it's best to just laugh at the idea of "flops" having any genuine value.
But strangely, the PS Vita still hasn't surpassed the PS3 visuals even with the resolution cut so something is going on that is making the Vita's GPU significantly inferior to the RSX.
Last edited by Inzane2050; 02-29-2012 at 09:50.
What do you mean there's more to visuals than the GPU? Graphics are all handled on the GPU, no?
So, the Cell doesn't do anything for the visuals on the PS3? That's what I'm talking about. The CPU taking some of the chores to do image processing.
Yeah, I definitely agree the PS3's CPU is of great help to the visuals. I didn't realize you meant the Cell BE.
Also, I would state that that Vita can just about match certain PS3 titles (we need to set some kind of standard or metric for the quality of the game/developer we're comparing for more accurate results imo) like Dynasty Warriors and Uncharted. Several comparisons have illustrated that Golden Abyss compares rather favorably to Uncharted 1. Not bad for a launch title.
As for textures, we'll see how this goes as time rolls on. Alot of this could have to do with cartridge size and developers only pushing out the first wave of release titles..
Last edited by Vulgotha; 03-01-2012 at 18:49.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)