[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]I don't know why everyone is knocking the dual 266MHz processor. Different platforms require different levels of power. Not everything needs Tegra or a 1GHz processor.[/citation]
Furthermore, the ARM-11 *IS* what the smartphone-class Tegra chips are packing. 2x266 MHz, even if IGN's number isn't woefuly below-spec, still gets within the same league as the single ARM-11 used in the Tegra APX chips designed for smartphones. The higher-end Tegra 650 and 250 GPUs are
not made for phones; they were made for Netbooks, and guzzle WAY too much power to ever appear in a handheld.
GPU-wise, the PICA200 is very specialized, allowing it to handle very specific, specialized performance; even at 133MHz, it still pumps out 533 million pixels per second, over double that of a smartphone-class Tegra or the A4's PowerVR. Similarly, its hardware T&L unit can handle 10.2 million polygons at that speed, approximately quadruple that of the Tegra's 2.6.
As for memory, if IGN couldn't get a valid source of screenshot for the size, then they're pulling numbers out of their rear end. Getting RAM quantities is the easiest thing to do: just tear open the device and read what's printed on the chips. 64MB is the lowest-end estimate, though, so it's still potentially valid; this ranges from 64-256MB, and without a bloated OS (like iOS 4 or Android) the 3DS won't need anywhere near as much RAM for non-game stuff.
Memory bandwidth is another question, though; mobile devices can have either a 32-bit or 64-bit interface, depending on whether they spring for a second RAM chip. Most phones are too tiny to afford the space for a second, effectively halving their bandwidth, though the 3DS's case should be readily large enough. If they take the slowest RAM that'd fit the architecture, that'd be 266 MHz mobile DDR-1... which would give the 3DS 2.1 GB/sec of bandwidth, slightly below the 2.66 GB/s of the full-speed Apple A4, and above all Tegras EXCEPT the 250. Yep, that's right...
The 3DS doesn't use a Tegra, but it's just as good, if not superior to, a Tegra.
And here's the kicker about the GPU: the PICA200 currently comes in a speed of 200-400 MHz, not 133. Hence it's doubtful that the 3DS will be clocked as IGN says. Estimates based on the power draw of the DS/DSi and comparing the power draw of the ARM-11 and PICA200 suggest that, should Nintendo aim for similar battery life, we'd be seeing up to triple the clock speeds IGN is claiming... In other words, 800 MHz for the ARM-11 and 400 MHz for the PICA200. The 800 MHz figure is backed up by the
fact that ARM doesn't make chips as slow as 266 MHz; they come from 350-1000+ MHz.
Factoring in the second CPU, and the PICA200's superiority to Nvidia's and PowerVR's mobile GPUs, this would mean iOS and Android phones won't be catching up on paper for a few years at least.
[citation][nom]nexus9113[/nom]PSP has only one MIPS chip at 333Mhz, 3DS has 2 ARM11 233 MHZ (More than likely one for each screen) plug a dedictated GPU. The PSP does not have better specs, that's just simple math.
(snip)
that MHz means nothing,[/citation]
I will note you DID kinda just contradict yourself there.
😛
Let's also not forget we're comparing a MIPS R4000 vs. a far more modern ARM-11. Also, the way programming works, you don't need a "separate CPU for each screen." Case-in-point with all the multi-display PCs, that ran perfectly fine with a single CPU/GPU setup. All you need for multiple displays is multiple ports; (and RAMDACs if they're analog displays) each port is simply given its own memory address to read from, and it doesn't care which CPU/GPU writes to that address, as long as there's something to read. Think of it in the same manner as all the split-screen multiplayer console games from the 90s.
And technically, the PSP DOES have a second CPU, though its architecture is a little weird, and hardly as capable for gaming as the first. The second "CPU," also known as the "Media Engine" has some limitations. For one, it lacks a true SIMD unit; it merely has a hacked-down one called a VME, that can do little else than handle audio/video. (the SIMD unit is the 'meat' of a CPU's horsepower) For the most part, this co-CPU actually lies largely idle/dormant when playing games. It's powered up when running H.264 media, allowing the main CPU to largely go into standby; this design allows the PSP to handle either both gaming and media tasks without having to have the battery drain that'd come with a "one-size-fits all" CPU design.
Also, on the graphics side... The PSP does have a GPU, but it's very, very primitive; it's roughly equivalent to a DX6 desktop GPU. (before nVidia and ATi started using the "GeForce" and "Radeon" names) It has 2 ROPs and 4 texture units, making it equivalent to an old-era "two-pipeline" GPU. It also completely lacks any T&L unit, requiring the CPU's sole multi-purpose SIMD unit be leant to the GPU to handle all the geometry. Similarly, any special shader effects must be handled by the CPU as well, which can really drain on the processing power available for the actual game core. By contrast, the PS3 has 40 total SIMD units instead of 1, with 8 on the CPU, 8 on the GPU for geometry, and 24 on the GPU for shaders.
The 3DS has a major advantage here; the GPU has a dedicated T&L unit, and both CPUs have SIMDs. Also, it has 4 ROPs and 8 texture units, and further, has built-in fixed-function capability for almost all shaders, (except HDR and Tesselation) allowing the GPU to effectively do "for free" what the PSP would have to hog the main CPU for.
So in the end, it's not just "simple math;" we have to look over the details of the architecture, to find that, as I'd noted in the comment right above this one, the 3DS well surpasses the gaming capabilities of anything on the market, including much-vaunted $500 Android and iOS smartphones.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram