Nintendo 3DS Specs Comparison: 3DS vs PSP vs iPhone 3GS

Now that we know what kind of graphics hardware is running the 3DS, we can begin to set our expectations on how it will compare to current handheld gaming devices. This chart compares the 3DS technical specifications to the PSP, iPhone 3GS, and original DS. How does it compare?

[hamoor]

great looks like the 3ds is blowing the psp and the ipod out of the water
sure it does only 15M polygons but the gamecube had like 12M polygons and yet i didn't saw any game on the app store or on the psp that had surpassed the gamecube graphics

[SpoonyRedMage]

I'll post what I posted in the other comments but the specs are the 2006 ones for the 3DS chip and it has improved since then:

In 2008 the polygon was 40 mil/sec as you can see in the image attached and it has likely improved from there in the last two years.

We know the lower limit of the 3DS' power but not exactly how powerful it is.

[lowlight]

The article was just updated to include the 2008 specs.

Its close to a PSP, but it still has to fill a 0.5 megapixel screen.

[SpoonyRedMage]

I'm not an expert of anything but why would we assume it will run at only 100mHz?

Doesn't the DS run at over at that anyway? and the PSP started off at 200 and is now over 300 isn't it?

Is it due to the different power consumption?

EDIT: Also isn't it entirely possible that the CPU or ARM processor will handle the bottom screen like with the DS as due to the design of the device they're clearly targetting the graphical experience for the top screen which means they won't need powerful graphics for the bottom screen meaning the GPU can be solely responsible for the top screen?

...and what I've heard the secondary rendering for the 3D effect takes around the same amount of power a split screen in games does not just simply doubling the requirements. Is that wrong?

EDIT2: In fact, it seems someone in that Neogaf thread is claiming that at 400mHz it's only using between 0.2 and 0.4 watts which I'm sure is lower than the DS uses.

[lowlight]

That's me in the GAF thread ;)

I am rewriting this article as new information comes in, and I perform more testing on the PSP.

You're right, it is safe to assume they are going to clock it at least 400 MHz, but probably no higher. Unfortunately it's not easy to draw a conclusion with these numbers just yet. So all we can do is comment on the MINIMUM performance is going to be :)

[Dorfdad]

FAIL comparing it to old tech (3GS) from the start. How about the iPhone 4 2x ram Better resolution faster processor and does shit loads more.

[lowlight]

Found the latest clock speeds and performance. Updating AGAIN

[Lord Gunchrote]

I might alone in thinking this...but I think handheld gaming has been lame since I grew outta pokemon. Its always "fun" for about 15 minutes to play the new "touch" or "3D" gimmicks Nintendo loves to come up with. And PSP is great hardware with no games. Console gaming!!!

[Colonel-Killzone]

Iphone is a fucking phone. Its not even a gaming handheld. It will always be a phone first and a gaming device after. Stupid ass comparison dumb ass article. I won't compare Metal gear solid peace walker to mostly over price apps on the app store oh plz give me a break.

[Trroy]

The Dual ARM8 architecture is required for DS BC, and they will be responsible for the bottom screen -- they might be ARM9s in the 3DS, or just reduced-die ARM8s with a higher clock.

The Pica 200 GPU will run at 200 MHz, not 400 MHz like this article claims. It possible to run it at that rate, but the "look at how much the PSP-1000 uses during MGS:PW" comparison is totally bogus. The DS battery, and presumably the 3DS battery, is not huge enough to store as much juice as the giant PSP-1000 1800 mAh battery was. It'll probably be half that size -- maybe 1000 mAh tops, and Nintendo is not going to produce a handheld whose battery life is no greater than the PSP, when previously the DS line has had battery lives of 3x the PSP.

That said, if you cut the 3DS numbers from the article in half (for 200 MHz not 400), and consider that it does *not* have to fill the bottom screen via the GPU, it's still a handheld that's a pretty close approximation of the PSP.

The thing is, I own a PSP already (2 actually). I dunno if the 3DS specs good enough (even if the GPU is 400 MHz) to inspire me to pick up a 3DS, rather just using a DSi. I guess the 3D camera sounds cool, but it'll be years before games companies fully support the 3DS, when they have a MUCH larger DS/DSi audience to attend to.

[lowlight]

Your first mistake is that the DS uses ARM8, where they really use ARM9. And it is safe to assume the 3DS will have ARM9 hardware as well. The original DS was clocked at 67 MHz, the DSi at 133 Mhz. They can take the ARM9 as high as 600 MHz if they want, so there is still a lot of headroom left.

Your second mistake is the assumption that it will run at 200 MHz as if it were a fact. There is no indication of what speed the chip will run at, whether 200 or 400 or 100 or 600 or whatever. There is also no indication of what the chip design will even be like - the original can do 4 pixels per clock, while Nintendo can opt for fewer if they want.

Your third mistake is stating that the GPU only displays to the top screen as a fact, which is not known at this point.

The article states all this clearly.

[Trroy]

You're correct about the ARM9/ARM7TDMI architecture -- I forgot that the two processors in the DS were different architectures, with different bases.

The rest of my "assumptions" are no different than your own, outside of the fact that you're ignoring the recommended GPU spec at the expense of battery life and durability, both of which are Nintendo strongholds, and that there would be no reason whatsoever for the GPU to be bound to the lower screen, since the device has BC with the DSi, and hence the ARM9/etc. architecture must be capable of rendering to the lower screen and the upper. It may be optional, but that'd be wasteful, and expensive -- another thing Nintendo isn't going to change their ways with.

The article assumptions use extreme values for its comparison, and choose a 5-year-old version of a competitors console to compare with, rather than the more recent revision. It is inherently biased and sensational. I'm just calling that out.

[raztad]

Well it's kinda expected 3DS to be more powerful than the PSP. It looks like the most important advantage is the fill rate, and it may go wasted if game is purely 2D. Resulting in games looking slightly crisper than the PSP.

What strikes me more are the horridly low DS specs. Nintendo surely did a killer selling such a piece of underpowered plastic.