Only Kaz knows the clocks, etc. :snicker The actual hardware can be found here...
http://us.playstation.com/psvita/tech-specs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Vita
http://us.playstation.com/psvita/tech-specs/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Vita
[QUOTE="Dasimpse, post: 5779036]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[/QUOTE] Framerate issues? I've played Uncharted and Wipeout and I haven't seen any framerate issues. What games are you playing?
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
Gflops: 7.2
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
Gflops: 28.8
Bandwidth: ??
(no idea what the Gflop measurement actually means, or if I'm missing something regarding the SGX543)
PS3 RSX:
Fillrate: 4,400 Mpixels, ??? MTriangles
Bus Width: 128bit
Gflops: 400.4
Bandwidth: 22.4GB/s
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.
Some info I dug up:
SGX543: @200Mhz (1 core):
Fillrate: 35 MTriangles, 1000 MPixels
Bus Width: 64bit
Gflops: 7.2
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
Gflops: 28.8
Bandwidth: ??
(no idea what the Gflop measurement actually means, or if I'm missing something regarding the SGX543)
PS3 RSX:
Fillrate: 4,400 Mpixels, ??? MTriangles
Bus Width: 128bit
Gflops: 400.4
Bandwidth: 22.4GB/s
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:
Hard to fill in the blanks without clock speeds...
Here's some info on the closest thing to the GPU:
[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH]Model[/TH]
[TH]Date[/TH]
[TH]Cores[/TH]
[TH]Die Size (mm[SUP]2[/SUP])[SUP][1][/SUP][/TH]
[TH]Config core[SUP][3][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"]Fillrate (@ 200 MHz)[/TH]
[TH]Bus width (bit)[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"]API (version)[/TH]
[TH]GFLOPS(@ 200 MHz,per core)[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]MTriangles/s[SUP][1][/SUP][/TH]
[TH]MPixel/s[SUP][1][/SUP][/TH]
[TH]DirectX[/TH]
[TH]OpenGL[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SGX543[/TD]
[TD]Jan 2009[/TD]
[TD]1-16[/TD]
[TD]8@65 nm[/TD]
[TD]4/2[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[TD]9.0[/TD]
[TD]2.1[/TD]
[TD]7.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Here's some info on the closest thing to the GPU:
[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[TH]Model[/TH]
[TH]Date[/TH]
[TH]Cores[/TH]
[TH]Die Size (mm[SUP]2[/SUP])[SUP][1][/SUP][/TH]
[TH]Config core[SUP][3][/SUP][/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"]Fillrate (@ 200 MHz)[/TH]
[TH]Bus width (bit)[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"]API (version)[/TH]
[TH]GFLOPS(@ 200 MHz,per core)[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]MTriangles/s[SUP][1][/SUP][/TH]
[TH]MPixel/s[SUP][1][/SUP][/TH]
[TH]DirectX[/TH]
[TH]OpenGL[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SGX543[/TD]
[TD]Jan 2009[/TD]
[TD]1-16[/TD]
[TD]8@65 nm[/TD]
[TD]4/2[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]1000[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[TD]9.0[/TD]
[TD]2.1[/TD]
[TD]7.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5780482]in short, due not having to render in HD & having 25% more ram then PS360, Vita can achieve graphics beyond those systems?[/QUOTE]
I think they might be able to fake it due to the small screens size, but you can tell that there are compromises being made. Look at the Uncharted models. Clearly they are of a much lesser poly count, textures aren't no where near as nice in most places, etc.
I think they might be able to fake it due to the small screens size, but you can tell that there are compromises being made. Look at the Uncharted models. Clearly they are of a much lesser poly count, textures aren't no where near as nice in most places, etc.
[QUOTE="F34R, post: 5780490]I think they might be able to fake it due to the small screens size, but you can tell that there are compromises being made. Look at the Uncharted models. Clearly they are of a much lesser poly count, textures aren't no where near as nice in most places, etc.[/QUOTE]
yeah but its a launch title & TBH, I'm not sure the Vita's processor can match Cell (Yes I know its old now, but it still does number crunching like a muthfucka) but yeah thats what I mean, Fake a better looking games due to not HD rendering.
yeah but its a launch title & TBH, I'm not sure the Vita's processor can match Cell (Yes I know its old now, but it still does number crunching like a muthfucka) but yeah thats what I mean, Fake a better looking games due to not HD rendering.
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.
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:
[QUOTE="Inzane2050, post: 5780656]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.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean it still hasn't surpassed the PS3 visuals? First off, we have only first wave of releases. Secondly, IT ISN'T GOING TO! There's a lot more involved in the visuals then just the GPU.
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.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean it still hasn't surpassed the PS3 visuals? First off, we have only first wave of releases. Secondly, IT ISN'T GOING TO! There's a lot more involved in the visuals then just the GPU.
[QUOTE="F34R, post: 5780698]Um, no. What the GPU can output is affected by the entire system from the CPU to the RAM, etc.[/QUOTE]
Well neither the CPU of the PS3 or Vita is capable of bottlenecking the GPUs of the two. And the main RAM won't affect visuals either as all of the graphics will be handled on the GPU as any other.
Well neither the CPU of the PS3 or Vita is capable of bottlenecking the GPUs of the two. And the main RAM won't affect visuals either as all of the graphics will be handled on the GPU as any other.
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5780482]in short, due not having to render in HD & having 25% more ram then PS360, Vita can achieve graphics beyond those systems?[/QUOTE]
I think it will be capable of doing that in select instances, yes. We probably won't see as good physics or poly count though. How noticeable this will, be however, is debatable.
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..
I think it will be capable of doing that in select instances, yes. We probably won't see as good physics or poly count though. How noticeable this will, be however, is debatable.
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:
I don't mind the character models, low anisotropic filtering or anything like that since developers are working with a smaller resolution but Uncharted: Golden Abyss wasn't locked at 30 frames per second. When you get to some of the large, open areas with a bunch of henchmen and large structures, it starts to drop below 20 frames per second. Other than that, no complaints.
If Rockstar Games consider developing a GTA title for the Vita then hopefully they do it with the modified RAGE engine. They didn't really accomplish much with the PSP (Liberty City Stories never looked as good as GTA III).
If Rockstar Games consider developing a GTA title for the Vita then hopefully they do it with the modified RAGE engine. They didn't really accomplish much with the PSP (Liberty City Stories never looked as good as GTA III).
Last edited:
[QUOTE="TGO, post: 5941992]What I don't get is this whole ram business
Vita has more ram then both the PS3 and 360, kinda like the Wii U does
Yet I don't see the benefits graphically
Things like textures and AA are not even matching the HD twins despite them having less ram
Sent via Codec[/QUOTE]
GPU is the one which has effect on graphixs while RAM affects loading and multitasking.
Vita has more ram then both the PS3 and 360, kinda like the Wii U does
Yet I don't see the benefits graphically
Things like textures and AA are not even matching the HD twins despite them having less ram
Sent via Codec[/QUOTE]
GPU is the one which has effect on graphixs while RAM affects loading and multitasking.