NVIDIA unconnected with 3DS

By Richard Leadbetter Published 5 June, 2010

No Tegra chipset in new Nintendo handheld.

Mobile industry insiders, speaking with Digital Foundry, have said that the much-rumoured tie-up between Nintendo and NVIDIA for the console-maker's auto-stereoscopic 3D handheld is not happening.

According to our two independent, unconnected sources, the Nintendo 3DS - almost certain to be revealed at E3 - features a design totally divorced from the NVIDIA Tegra SoC (system on chip) initially thought to have been powering the DS successor. It's now thought that Nintendo has instead chosen a Japanese partner for the 3D acceleration hardware within the 3DS.

Sources also confirmed that the 3DS' development codename is "Nintendo CTR", meaning that this motherboard picture we ran a couple of weeks back, sourced from the FCC website, is indeed something akin to a development or test station for the new handheld.

This strongly suggests that 3DS does feature a widescreen "glasses free" stereoscopic 3D display, along with a more conventional 4:3 2D display beneath it. Interestingly, it appears that the images of the board published on the FCC website were uploaded in error: they were supposed to have been made public 10 months after the submission in April this year, presumably after the 3DS itself ships.

Meanwhile, IGN corroborates the story that NVIDIA is out of the picture, quoting "off-the-record" developer sources as saying that the 3DS is up there in the power stakes with PS3 and Xbox 360. It's a statement that needs to be taken with barrel-loads of salt bearing in mind the enormous power draw such a chipset would require. If nothing else, Nintendo has a strong track record in excellent battery life with every one of its previous handhelds.

Indeed, even the four-core PowerVP chip said to be at the heart of the PSP2 offers a performance level some way between the original Xbox and the 360. A more modest GPU is therefore a much more realistic proposition, especially bearing in mind that even the iPhone 3GS with its PowerVR SGX535 architecture doesn't exactly command outstanding battery life in 3D gaming.

All of which is interesting tittle-tattle in the here and now, but let's hope that the Nintendo E3 conference on June 15, kicking off at 5pm UK time, will offer more concrete answers.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (51) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • photoboy #1 2 years ago

    I will be really surprised if the final 3DS has one screen wider than the other. I would expect that prototype just used a standard DS touch screen because it was easier to wire one of those up than getting a new touch screen built for it.

    Of course if the 3DS is backwards compatible maybe the touch screen needs to stay the same ratio for compatibility with old games? I'd have thought black borders at the sides would have sufficed but maybe Nintendo found that problematic for some reason.
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/10 @ 18:30

  • spiritsnake #2 2 years ago

    power stakes similar to the likes of PS3 and 360!!! u gota be kidding,why would we need so much processing and graphical power in a handheld!! thats abso****lutely outrageous.
    nintendo should stay on course with very modest hardware and great innovative fun games,its helped them stay ahead so far,why change the formula???

  • Lee_Morris #3 2 years ago

    "3DS is up there in the power stakes with PS3 and Xbox 360" IGN are not to be trusted peddling quotes like that. There is no way in hell the 3DS will be that powerful. Nintendo hasn't really made a monster machine since the N64. I'm not bashing Nintendo here because I'll probably get one the day it launches, it just doesn't seem like Nintendo.

    I suppose 2 screens seemed strange at the time of the DS announcement but I'm sure we all say the possibilities of 2 screens of the same size next to each other but 2 different size screens will make it look really odd and un-uniform (is that a word?) Part of the appeal to ordinary folk must be how stylish the DS looks. Well from the Lite onwards anyway. Although to counter my own point, not many games used both screens at once so I can't see it affecting that side of things.

    ps Nintendo you can't get away with showing crappy looking prototypes to the public now the media's cruel and vindictive eye is upon you. Case in point: http://ww w.gadgetmadness.com/archives/me...

  • smelly #4 2 years ago

    >intendo hasn't really made a monster machine since the N64.

    (sarcasm)no you're right. The cube was in no way vastly superior to the ps2(/sarcasm)

  • hiddenranbir #5 2 years ago

    A Japanese partner huh? Bit risky to "keep it in the family" if you know what I'm talking about, eh? eh?

  • dfish #6 2 years ago

    my bet is the source was misquoted. if a 3d display displays a 2d video, its pixel density would be the sum of the two screens( given its one screen on top of another) hence the video quality would be comparable to HD? well its just a guess:)

  • Lee_Morris #7 2 years ago

    (sarcasm)no you're right. The cube was in no way vastly superior to the ps2(/sarcasm)

    I'm not saying the gamecube was crap and there were some amazing looking game on it but come on it wasn't a beast of a machine. The low opening price told us as much. I'm honestly not bashing Nintendo, I've bought all the consoles and handholds they've released from the N64 onwards. I even spent Ł70 on a GBA micro *tears of pain*

  • Lusterpurge #8 2 years ago

    There is no way Nintendo would aim for "power stakes with PS3 and Xbox 360". The PSP is seriously adequate for graphics so I am expecting something like that, but possibly with the resolution of an iPhone (don't know if that is higher or lower than a PSP). It really makes sense for the top screen to be wider than the bottom since rarely do games use both to display 1 image. Usually, the bottom screen is the secondary screen. You can't make the bottom screen wide because of the D-pad and face buttons, but there is absolutely nothing in the way on the top. Looking at the DS, there is a lot of wasted space on the top that could house a much wider screen.

    Top: 3D, not touch, widescreen
    Bottom: 2D, touch, not widescreen
    I think this combination would be perfect for any 3DS game.

  • KillerMonkey #9 2 years ago

    Top screen widescreen and bottom one 4:3 makes perfect sense to me.... for FPS games.

    Other games, not so much.

  • CallousB #10 2 years ago

    Although I would prefer two wide screen displays...one large and one small does make sense from both a cost and size perspective.

    Having a smaller bottom screen means that there's room for buttons/ d-pads /analogue nubs...without having to expand the width of the console. Have a widescreen at the botton and you and another inch or two to the size of the machine.

    More importantly from Nintendo's perspective is that a quality 3D screen will add a fair bit of cost to the device....having two would likely bump the price significantly.

    My guess is the 3D widescreen will also be a touchscreen and will be the primary screen for gameplay..while the bottom screen will be used primarly for maps or to add extra controls (perhaps with some form of haptic feedback).

    I don't believe it will be that high powered. I expect Gamecube level..but perhaps with shaders and decent AA if we're luckiy (which would likely be needed to make 3D objects appear more real)
    Edited by 1 at 05/06/10 @ 21:48

  • mrboshingles #11 2 years ago

    No Tiagra? how will they keep up?

  • albinac #12 2 years ago

    i´m really going to pay attention to this one. almost as powerful as a ps3/xbox360, now that would be nice to see.the crapy test machine pictures i´m sure were deliberately leaked as to throw of sony. lets see what developes of this one.

  • malexous #13 2 years ago

    The GameCube may not have been a beast of a machine but it does not negate the fact that the PS2 was inferior.

    The GameCube was even designed for 3D gaming. [link url=http:// gonintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=113348
    ]http://go nintendo.com/viewstory.php?id=1...[/link]

    I doubt the graphics on the 3DS will be as good as the 360/PS3 but the CPU might be in order to render the 3D along with everything else.

  • Quixz #14 2 years ago

    Ps3/xbox360 power.. not going to happen. That would mean that the 3DS is vastly more powerful than the Wii.


    :typo
    Edited by 1 at 06/06/10 @ 21:47

  • Dafub #15 2 years ago

    Tigra or no Tigra the 3DS will be more powerfull then the WII if not the 360/PS3

    The reasons for this are quite simple The Wii's GPU is simply a higher clocked version of the Game Cube's GPU
    in other words the architectur(core design) of the WII's Graphics chip is 9 years old!!.

    This means that there are almost a decades worth of advances in general design terms and new standards to take
    advantage of.

    To put it bluntly the WII's GPU is a inherently ineffecient design by modern standards.
    The GPU's performance is constrained by performance sapping Design bottlenecks that have been resolved long
    ago By the GPU industry. It also does not support modern standards like programable shaders in it's design
    something the original Xbox did in 2001!!!!!!!.
    The shaders issue is of particular inportance as Programmeable shaders are the major standard underpining
    modern game graphics with the 360's GPU considered to have the best shader support of this generation of consoles.

    The fact is that any Portable Graphics chipset tech developed in the last few years and there has been a big boom in this area due to explosion in netbooks and portable wifi devices and 3g smart phones, will surpass the WII's raw horse power
    at a much lower clock cycle due to much more effecient(modern) design.
    Any such chip design would also have support for programmeable shaders at it's core.
    Even if the supported shader standerd was the very basic 9 year old one the Xbox had the 3ds
    would still be able to produce effects the Wii cannot do at all!!!! See Deus Ex 2 and the chronicles of riddick as examples.
    the more modern the shader standard the bigger the gap.

    Another issue is memory the Wii has a total of 88MB of main memory and only 3mb for both texture memory and the frame buffer! compared to 128 in the Iphone and Iphone 3G and 256Mb of memory in the 3GS
    It should also be noted that the markup on the Iphone is believed to be as high as 55%.

    It is well within possibility that the 3ds could have at least 128mb of memory current model PSP's have 64mb of memory to speed up loading but all games are constrained by original version's 32mb. and the 3ds would not be lumbered with the PSP's
    power eating and very expensive UMD drive.

    The cost of texture memory and frame buffer twice the size of the Wii's e.g 6mb
    would be neglable. it is also very clear that nintendo now views apple and the iphone/ipod touch as the primary compitition going forward. and would have to take into account the barely over a year life span of each generation of iphone relased to date. it is probable that nintendo would need to make sure that the 3ds's base line specs such as chipset, memory and screen resolution would compare well to at least the first two generations of Iphone that would be released post 3ds.
    although that is just a guess on my part.

    The last area were the 3ds is bound to have an edge is in the area were the Wii is most notibly constrained e.g screen resolution of 480 by 640 otherwise known as 480p. if the Sharp 3d screen tech is being used by nintendo and that seems likely
    then the screen will have a slight edge in 3d mode and a much greater resolution edge in 2d mode.etheir way the 3ds will naturally be able to support higher resolution textures then the wii.

    Although I can't predict the exact specs of the 3ds with absolute certanty be under no illusions the chip technology in the wii is merely sped up 9 year old junk and any modern mobile chip set will be able to surpass it.

  • Shakey_Jake33 #16 2 years ago

    smelly - Is that really fair though? The GameCube was a good couple of years after the Playstation 2 (at a time when technology was moving rapidly), and was designed to be relatively cheap to manufacture. They sold the machine with a Ł129 RRP and still made a profit on units sold. If anything, the GameCube was the beginning of a trend for Nintendo.

  • vizzini #17 2 years ago

    “"off-the-record" developer sources as saying that the 3DS is up there in the power stakes with” PS3 and 360”

    The only way that is remotely possible is if they are using a lower frequency 40nm Cell processor, say at 500Mhz, and even then the size, power and cooling requirements make it very unlikely. But the Cell's electrical design was chosen to fit the requirements of portable processing according to the STI group.

    Although Sony would only agree to license the Cell for a Nintendo hand held if the companies were merging.

    The time might be right for a Sony Nintendo merger; with the launch of Move, DS, PSP & Wii all nearing life cycle ends; and Sony probably releasing the world's first ray-tracing games console in 3years time.

    But it's still a stretch of the imagination that they would merge, or that Nintendo will release a hand held of such performance. So it is more likely a lower frequency less SPUs version of the Cell will power a PSP2.
    Edited by 2 at 06/06/10 @ 11:23

  • hahayou #18 2 years ago

    It'd probably serve them better to keep the graphic abilities of the 3DS low. If they put Wii-level graphics in it they'll get a raft of shitty, poorly planned and hastily compiled Wii ports. The DS did very well by being so far off the graphics map that developers had to make unique games for it, whereas the PSP got a lot of PS2 games hamstrung by the lower screen resolution and unsuitable controls.

  • sfried #19 2 years ago

    >If they put Wii-level graphics in it they'll get a raft of shitty, poorly planned and hastily compiled Wii ports.
    Unless, of course, a Wii successor is already in the works...We only know of 3DS now because of investor pressure and the need to put it to press before the leak. I still wonder what it would be like right now if we hadn't known about any of the 3D vision capabilities.

    In short, nothing but rumors and speculation. And I do think IGN is exaggerating by saying the perfromance of a PS3/XB360, although its probably not farfetch to think they meant "featureset" instead. Regardless, I wouldn't be surprised if it is superior to the Wii's processing power, and wouldn't be surprised if it isn't.

  • jerrymanu #20 2 years ago

    Fucking SPAMING wankers

  • fknetwork #21 2 years ago

    "3DS is up there in the power stakes with PS3 and Xbox 360."
    I lol'd

  • twh104 #22 2 years ago

    Why wouldn't it be as powerful as the 360 though? That was released in 2005.
    If the PSP was PS2 level technology when released in 2004, four years on from the PS2 then why isn't minaturisation as good now?

  • Bagpuss #23 2 years ago

    "quoting "off-the-record" developer sources as saying that the 3DS is up there in the power stakes with PS3 and Xbox 360"

    Lool....that had me laughing quite violently...:))

  • vizzini #24 2 years ago

    @twh104
    “If the PSP was PS2 level technology when released in 2004, four years on from the PS2 then why isn't minaturisation as good now? “

    The number of transistors per area/volume will eventually hit a brick wall in the future, where reliability of fabricating at such high densities, with thinner nanometre technology becomes unsatisfactory.

    At the moment it is just getting harder/expensive to get the same reductions.
    The ps2 was only clocked ~300Mhz, with two vector processors, which helped; had it been 800Mhz without the two vector units like xbox, it would have been much harder/expensive and resulted in a compromise like the Intel Atoms of the time.

  • eoinbn #25 2 years ago

    "Why wouldn't it be as powerful as the 360 though? That was released in 2005.
    If the PSP was PS2 level technology when released in 2004, four years on from the PS2 then why isn't minaturisation as good now?"

    The 360 GPU is similar to an Nvidia GT220 which has a power usage of ~45-50watts! Given that mobile phone SoC usually operate at under 1W I think it's safe to assume that Nintendo's GPU wouldn't be as powerful as the current Xbox/PS3 as Nintendo's partner would need to design a chip that is ~100 times more efficient than Nvidia/ATi current offering's.

  • L0cky #26 2 years ago

    Just to add a little perspective, the phone I'm using to read this has a 1Ghz 40nm processor and 576mb RAM in a form factor that is probably less than half the size than the 3DS will need to be.

    You could throw in a larger on board battery and a GPU with the extra space. It depends more on cost than capability but if a proprietary chipset is used then it becomes a lot more cost effective to manufacture the millions of units they'll be producing.

    However, the DS showed that cutting edge hardware isn't needed for success and Nintendo have stated repeatedly that they're no longer interested in technology races.

    The geek in me wants to see some serious horsepower but the gamer in me doesn't really care.

  • vizzini #27 2 years ago

    @L0cky
    I agree, your phone specs make a good point. Though a 1Ghz mobile CPU is rarely the equivalent of 1Ghz desktop CPU. That was sort of where the PSP differed from 300 Mhz CPU phones of the time.

  • Dizzy #28 2 years ago

    In 2010 people still fall for the power argument? It is the games!

  • smelly #29 2 years ago

    >No Tiagra? how will they keep up?

    that gets a +1 from me for making me smile, and bringing light to a dreary day.. cheers!

  • smelly #30 2 years ago

    >To put it bluntly the WII's GPU is a inherently ineffecient design by modern standards.


    But yet - it STILL has better fill rate than the 360!

  • smelly #31 2 years ago

    oh go on then.. triple post combo:

    >e.g screen resolution of 480 by 640 otherwise known as 480p.

    Why on EARTH do you think that a screen resolution of higher that 640x480 is needed on a 2 inch screen?

    You'd be hard pushed to see the difference between 480p and 720p on a 32" screen, let alone a 2 inch one!

  • Miths #32 2 years ago

    "... the 3DS is up there in the power stakes with PS3 and Xbox 360. It's a statement that needs to be taken with barrel-loads of salt bearing in mind the enormous power draw such a chipset would require."

    It will come bundled with a power brick with a belt clip and a chest mounted 10" fan :).

  • smelly #33 2 years ago

    Oh go on then .. 4 in a row...

    >In 2010 people still fall for the power argument?

    Especially when they talk about power and not really understand it. Yes the wii is less powerful than the 360/ps3, nintendo made no bones about it. But explain to me why mario galaxy 2 looks better than a LOT of games on both of those platforms (the fanboys will start crying here because it's not in grey and brown and doesnt have normal maps - or insert technical crap here)? The reason? Because of art style choice. No amount of power is going to make a grey game more interesting visually to look at, sure it might look more realistic (but realism in games, just proves how far we have to go technically to get there).

    I've never really bought the argument that games needed to go to hd in the first place. In standard def games still dont look as good as video - so whats the point in adding more pixels?

    Besides give me a game with GAMEPLAY like mario galaxy 2 - than the latest 5 hour long mini game fps... Or something like red dead (which i've completed) which was no more than a series of bad minigames joined together with boring plot sequences and horse riding... But at least it looked "realistic"... (i wont use the word "pretty" there - because it wasnt)

    Ooooh controversial..

  • Adi-C #34 2 years ago

    So some people say that
    "hey, if they managed to squeeze in ps2's performance into psp in its (ps2's) mid-life, miniaturisation goes on, so why not do the same now?"

    Well, the difference is that previous console generations (pre-ps3/x360) used A LOT LESS power than pc's at the time. So it wasn't THAT difficult to pack the same processing power to portables.
    However when ps3/x360 came out, this has changed- they both used about as much power as a good gaming pc at the time. Never before have game consoles used so much power.

    You don't easily pack something with pc's power draw into a handheld.

    Even now with die shrinks, ps3/x360 still use A LOT more power than previous generation consoles did.
    ps2 slim used about 30watts at load ingame (its power brick had about 45W max, meaning no game ever used that much),
    Now second gen ps3slim (after going 40nm with RSX) still use70-80W ingame.

    Now go and squeeze in THAT into 3DS. Not gonna happen, mate.

  • alcides #35 2 years ago

    @Miths

    Or you'll have to blow on that one too, but not for the same reason/purpose

  • Dafub #36 2 years ago

    @smelly

    Hi, first off a better fill rate is to be expected when comparing a 5th generation standard definition console
    to a first generation HD console. 720p is brand new tech for consoles 480p is not.

    Second screen resolutions used in the 90's in pc games were very clearly better then 480p.
    let alone 720p HD!! I have a 32 inch Lcd HDTV and 720p is vastly better then 480p

    It is certanly true that Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 have very impressive visuals but this is inspite of the wii's GPU rather then because
    of it. the wii can only pull off those visuals because of the extremely basic nature of both games 3d models and terrain 3d.

    The fact is that the mario galaxys 1 & 2 visuals are completely underpinned by very low polygon counts freeing up bandwith and GPU resources for some basic improvised shader work mainly Bump mapping that gives the game its visual flare.
    The Wii GPU has no programable shader support in its design and could not pull off shaders at all in a more polygon intensive inviroment. it is in other words Nintendo working around the Wii's limitations rather then take advantage of its power.

  • Zaiz #37 2 years ago

    @Adi-C

    My pre-360 desktop downstairs could take on a 360 and play all its games at maxed out settings with a rock-solid 30 FPS. Please stop acting like the 360 was cool and new tech, since it was more than a little archaic when it came out, they just had the newest shaders and such jammed into a generation old GPU. Same case for the PS3, but the Cell processor is something special -- not as special as a quad core, but pretty damn good.

    @Dafub

    720p is nothing new for PCs, even when the new consoles came out. Console tech is based on inexpensive PC tech, don't forget that.(except the Cell) Also, the point was that Mario Galaxy shreds based on art design, which most games are severely lacking in. For example, Aion has a super-powered engine, excellent character models, and tons of capability to create awesome landscapes. The catch? Doesn't look as good as Guild Wars, or even WoW, due to art design deficiency. Art design is far superior to the newest tech.

  • Adi-C #38 2 years ago

    @Zaiz
    I can't remember saying anything about x360 being so powerfu or new...? I'm just sayin' that "new" consoles drew helluva lot of watts, and that that's a problem with going portable with this tech. And when trying to make this tech more compact- you can have this kind of performance in today's laptops, but these are obviously long ways from becoming pocket-sized, so i don't really see a way you can expect 3DS to be of the same power as ps3/x360, as mentioned by ign's source.
    That's what i meant- x360/ps3 isn't gonna fit your pocket under a "3DS" logo.
    You're saying you've had a pc better than a 360 before the 360- ok, but five years later you still can't fit in in your pocket now, can you? That's my point, closest you can get is a laptop, and i don't think 3DS will be the size of a laptop:)

  • Rens11 #39 2 years ago

    Nintendo Crash Team Racing :)

  • Iain815 #40 2 years ago

    "Nintendo Crash Team Racing :)"

    About time someone said it.

  • uglygamer #41 2 years ago

    Crash team racing
    Best kart racing game ever!

  • LHH #42 2 years ago

    IT'S OVER, NVIDIA IS FINISHED

  • smelly #43 2 years ago

    So i dont know how to approach this.. so here we go...

    >Hi,

    Why hello!


    > first off a better fill rate is to be expected when comparing a 5th generation standard definition console
    to a first generation HD console. 720p is brand new tech for consoles 480p is not.


    You dont actually know what fill rate means do you? Go away and come back when you do... You'll make yourself look less of a moron...



    >Second screen resolutions used in the 90's in pc games were very clearly better then 480p.
    let alone 720p HD!! I have a 32 inch Lcd HDTV and 720p is vastly better then 480p


    eh?

    There's a difference between sitting on your couch 4 metres from your tv, and looking at your monitor 12 inches away. Either way, thinking you can see the differnce beween 480p and 720p on a 2 inch screeen... Well i hope you read the "emperors clothes"


    >It is certanly true that Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 have very impressive visuals but this is inspite of the wii's GPU rather then


    etc etc... Yawn.. basically your saying that you personally think that a game has to be grey an bown and have normal maps and all that guff to look good... While ignoring the obvious visuals in front of your face ...

    But yet some tech-tard like yourself (and the people who promoted you) will never be able to appreciate that graphics CAN look good without boring technology to promote them.

    I could go on about stunning 2d disney films as examples, yadda yadda... but you'll never listen. As far as your concerned gaming began in the playstation era and stuff... For you things only look good as long as they're boring grey and brown, have normal maps (not that you know what that is) and look uber realistic..

    .. And you miss out on why people might think that "non realistic" stuff is actually more enjoyable to "play".


    But then you're a casual gamer arent you? Have fun with your latest "must have" title which you can complete within a week (i know i did) - i'll be enjoying a playing through a proper hard core title like mario galaxy 2.. something you wouldnt stand a chance on beating as you're just a casual gamer who only buys the causal mini-game fps stuff.

  • smelly #44 2 years ago

    >The Wii GPU has no programable shader support in its design

    OH NOES!

    Okay! I've changed my mind.. you MUST be right! That MUST mean that MG2 is SHIT! Hell i was wrong it doesnt look better than all those dull shitty games you play at ALL!! I mean, how CAN IT? ? It doesnt even have programmable shadres!!!!

    IT MUST BE SHIT!


    PS: I've never coded for the wii, but i have coded for the cube... And can i just point out you're wrong there anyhow? I wont start giving you technical reasons - because it's clear you dont actually know what is meant by "programmable shaders", i wouldnt want to embarass you...

  • tnt_2008smum #45 2 years ago

    Wow such anger!

    So smelly just out of curiosity, exactly how fat and lonely are you?

  • Mono_X #46 2 years ago

    I agree with a lot of what Smelly says....

    ...And I'm fat and lonely. :p

    BTW isn't Tiagra a character from Thundercats?

  • Josh128 #47 2 years ago

    Smelly, I'm very curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the Wii GPU has a higher fillrate than the X360 GPU. Do you mean proportionally, based on Wii generally running in an 852x480 resolution vs. X360 running at 1280 x 720? If you mean literally, as is megapixels/sec and megatexels/sec tit for tat, I dont believe that for a second. Please educate me...

    Going by megapixels/sec, a quick Google search yielded 972MPixels/sec for Wii and 4000 MPixels/sec for X360. Over a 4x advantage for X360. So once again, how do you figure?
    Edited by 1 at 07/06/10 @ 16:23

  • Retro_ #48 2 years ago

    Move along, nothing to see here. Roll on E3, I want to see the PSP2.

  • smelly #49 2 years ago

    whoops - maybe posting when drunk wasnt the bestest idea.

  • Dafub #50 2 years ago

    @smelly

    Hi, at no time do I say MG 1 or 2 are "shit" I am not commenting on the game play at all merely the visuals.

    while obviously the Wii's GPU can do a small amount shaders as long as the work load on other stuff is low.

    The GPU has no dedicated shader hardware in its design no dedicated shader pipeline let alone any SPU's (Stream Processors)

    in other words any programmable shaders on the wii or cube are not being run on hardware purposefully designed for the purpose. The Xbox had built in hardware support for programmable shaders Deus EX 2 and the chronicles of riddick cannot be done on the Wii because of the lack of dedicated hardware support for shaders.

  • smelly #51 2 years ago

    @Dafub - there's so much wrong with what you're saying that i dont know where to begin.. and it'll only result in me getting lots of negs anyhow.. and has nothing to do with the 3ds which is what this story is about - and as yet we know nothing really about anyhow.

    And (going back to my original point - before you all started talking about tech stuff you dont understand) - there's more to a game looking good than tech alone anyhow. As shown by the stunningly beautiful mario galaxy 2 (which *shock* isnt even in hi def!)

    And no i wont comment further on the drunken rambling stuff i posted either.