Just in case no one saw this already.
Edit: the image isn't showing up.
http://www.glbenchmark.com/compare....Pad 3&D2=Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime TF201
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad 3 Graphics benchmark released
- Thread starter MacMane
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just in case no one saw this already.
Edit: the image isn't showing up.
http://www.glbenchmark.com/compare....Pad 3&D2=Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime TF201
It's pretty meaningless - even if the vita was a fair bit slower games would look better on it, because the developers can pretty much program it "to the metal". They don't have the limitations we iOS devs have to live with.
Rough guide:
- Most of the GLBenchmark results at the top are pretty worthless, because the screen resolution is different on each device. Of course it's going to run faster on a smaller, lower-res screen.
- The GLBenchmark "offscreen" tests show the real story. That one renders the same scene at the same resolution on each device. And the iPad 3 is *fast*.
- The "raw performance" tests are pretty useless. Most of them run a test and measure the framerate. A quick look at the iPad 3's scores shows lots of tests running at 60fps - which is the maximum it'll render. It's like testing a car to see how fast it'll go, then keeping strictly to the speed limit - all you find out is that it'll do at least the speed limit.
I noticed that the numbers for the ipad 2 differed significantly if you check the box next to: GLBenchmark Team Tested only. Does that indicate that checking the box will give more accurate data?
Ah, I'll take my iphone and my console over a Vita. It's neat, sure, but it's too expensive and too big. My console is fine for gaming at home, much better than any handheld (for one the controllers can be designed specifically for holding and don't have to compromise by accomodating a screen). And I already own the iphone so I'd have to be convinced to buy the Vita extra on top of the iphone. Except the Vita is so big I don't see it going many places with me (certainly not like my phone that fits in my purse so is everywhere with me) which is really the big point of a handheld (to be able to be more mobile). I only really see me taking it when I go on vacation where I have luggage to put it in. So why would I pay 250 (plus price of games) for that? I'll just compromise and play games on my smartphone that can go everywhere with me.
I think this is why ipad/iphone/android phones are competition for handhelds (not talking consoles here). Because they are more portable, most people are going to have them anyways cause they need a phone and/or they also do other stuff for them (portable web browser/computer that is easy to take places) so they aren't paying extra for the device and are already packing it to go with them (or it goes with them everywhere in the smartphone's case). Sure, you compromise game quality, but you do that anyways for mobile gaming (sorry, mobile game platforms are not better than consoles). I'd rather my mobile gaming be pretty mobile for the compromise, not just a little bit mobile.
I suppose on the argument for the ipad if you have the backpack or whatnot to take the ipad, you probably can fit in the Vita too.
Honestly, I'd have loved to see the Vita do well (I think it will get a lot better games than the Nintendo's handheld) except I think it's just too expensive, especially for what size it is and that it isn't that portable (at least it won't even fit in my purse, never mind some one who doesn't have a purse and just pockets).
Actually, the iPad 3 has the same GPU hardware as the PS Vita. Care to research for 30.5 seconds before posting inflammatory comments?
We're discussing the GPU. Anyway, the GPU might be the same, clock speeds might be different. Even if they're the same, vita games will look a lot better.
What limitations are you referring to?
It's nice to see a developer sharing experience and not reading specs on a web page. There is a lot of "paper engineers" on this forum.
The one thing the Vita and most gaming systems have to deal with is stale hardware. The iPad will constantly keep getting performance bumps. Traditionally game systems have they're hardware for 5 years or more.
Isn't using the same hardware a good thing? So one doesn't have to feel like they need to upgrade to play the latest and greatest? I know the iPad 2 hasn't even reached its full potential. At least with game consoles devs are trying things to squeeze out more power etc year after year with the same hardware. I personally like seeing that. Not to say there aren't apps that make use of older hardware but when the iPad 1 is already unable to do utilize apps the iPad 2 can, that kinda sucks.
The vita is $250-$300 and will be viable say 3-4 years down the line for gaming; I just hope the same for iPad 2 and 3.
After playing GTA 3 and COD Zombies on the iPad 2 SONY could suck it!
I put in so many hours in just those 2 games alone on my big screen iPad.
I 'm a Playstation man from day one, but the iPad is snatching the mobile gaming crown without hardware controls.
For me it ain't about graphics, its about classic games priced right thats fun to play on a mobile device.
Sony has all that power in the Vita and still comes up short by being greedy.
Their overpriced proprietary memory cards and ugly UI ran me off real quick.
I'll get one when the storage is cheaper, custom firmware can be installed and PS1 - 2 titles are emulated. Until then I have a psp 10001 that plays thousands of classics.
I put in so many hours in just those 2 games alone on my big screen iPad.
I 'm a Playstation man from day one, but the iPad is snatching the mobile gaming crown without hardware controls.
For me it ain't about graphics, its about classic games priced right thats fun to play on a mobile device.
Sony has all that power in the Vita and still comes up short by being greedy.
Their overpriced proprietary memory cards and ugly UI ran me off real quick.
I'll get one when the storage is cheaper, custom firmware can be installed and PS1 - 2 titles are emulated. Until then I have a psp 10001 that plays thousands of classics.
You're kidding right?
The iPad 3 features the same GPU and by the end of the year every premium smartphone will have the same graphical capabilities. At the end of 2013 mobile devices will output graphics that are way past the Vita.
Sony made a mistake by not gifting the Vita with high-end custom hardware. Instead they use off shelf components from ARM without any exclusivity at all.
The Vita is not a future proof gaming console.
I understand the vita has the same gpu as the new iPad, but it's still a gaming first device. When I say viable I mean that companies will still make high production games for the Vita down the road. Do you think this will be the case for the iPad? I'm speaking in terms of gaming though since we're talking about the vita and gpu. It doesn't matter if the Vita will be surpassed in terms of hardware, do you think the ps3 and Xbox are still cutting edge? No, but games are still being developed for them because they're intended for gaming. My original reply was referring to hardware changes and gaming and in my opinion I like seeing hardware utilized for more than 2 years.
The iOS platform has recently attracted quite a lot of interest from top gaming studios and I won't be surprised to see the the iPad/iPhone getting titles the Vita won't.
You can't compare the PS3/Xbox 360 with the Vita. The home console feature very high-end and custom developed hardware that was well ahead of their time i.e the cell processor. The Vita on the other hand is not cutting edge. It's just contemporary.
However you did make a valid point that the life span of the iPad 3 as a gaming platform won't be nearly as long as a gaming console. As a new model is launched the proceeding generations are downgraded to rubbish. The Vita's future is rather questionable too and will strongly depend on whether studios have interest in developing for it rather than creating games for the millions of iOS devices sold every year.
The limitation is the OS. To program the GPU we have to go through openGL ES, and we have to use the OS APIs for lots of other things. On the vita you don't have to do that (although I assume that you can). You can program it at a much lower level and remove the openGL layer. Just skipping openGL would give a performance benefit, but the lower level you go the more you can optimise for the hardware and squeeze every bit of performance from the system.
Also, there's a huge benefit to *not* getting regular performance bumps. If I write a game today, I probably want to support the iPad 1, 2 and 3. The iPad 1 is slow, so you have to design around the slowest system to a fair extent. The iPad 2 is very fast, so you can do more - but the game is basically built for the iPad 1, so you end up just adding a bit more of everything and throwing in a few fancy effects to improve the graphics. Then there's the iPad 3. You could do really amazing graphics, but you have to get the same graphics running on the 2 and 1, so again you end up polishing up rather than designing for it.
There's more too. After a year working with the iPad 2 GPU extensively, I'm getting very comfortable with it, and I can push it *way* harder than I could a year ago. For my own work we're probably talking 3x or higher performance improvement from learning the intricacies of the GPU and figuring out how to squeeze lots more performance out of it. The iPad 3 is just a speed bump, but the iPad 4 is likely to be a new GPU. That means lots more to learn, and it means I have to optimise the code to run on both as well as possible - not always ideal.
The vita on the other hand - coders will be working with it for maybe 5 years. They'll be doing stuff on it then that looks impossible today.
Put those two points together, and you see why console graphics tend to look many times better than the same game running on equivalent hardware. The vita might share the same GPU as the vita, but I bet vita games will look better than iPad or iPhone games for at least the next two years, possibly longer.
Doesn't mean it'll be successful of course - it might be better, but if you already have an iPhone in your pocket and an iPad back at home it seems very expensive for the benefits it gives.
See above
I stopped reading when you said the Vita was too expensive.
You do realise its specs blow away any iPhone right? Thats on top of the 5inch OLED screen. And comes at less than half the cost of the lowest model iPhone 4S.
£200 is a bargain. And you cant complain about memory either, as it was effectively free for those who preordered.
You also need to remember that touchscreen devices have no physical controls, which means its not a gaming device. Most Indie XBLA titles are more advanced, because they have physical controls.
All Apple needs to do is create a slim case with a gamepad integrated with dual analogue sticks, or slide pads, if you will. Then once all the big companies start to make AAA titles for iOS (which they have yet to do), then, and only then, will smartphones be the go-to device for portable gaming.
Vita was out specced withing months of its launch. Can you imagine how clapped out its going to be in 3yrs when even budget smartphone outperform it? All we need is for a bluetooth controller support in IOS and bam. I have no doubt Sony will ditch the Vita pretty sharpish. Theyre already publishing games on Android, IOS support cant be that far behind.