Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPad 3 Graphics benchmark released

striker33 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're comparing them as purely gaming devices, which is something nobody is going to do. You wouldn't buy an iPhone and only use it as a games machine any more than you'd buy a vita as a phone. If you think the iPhone is bad value as a games machine, the vita is an absolute outrage as a phone ;)

This is the whole issue - you need a phone, and you likely want all the extras that go with it like camera, email, browser, and all the apps. That means you already have something in your pocket like an iPhone. So when it comes to a games machine, you already have the iPhone, while the vita is an additional purchase, and an extra box to carry. If you buy only the vita it's cheaper, but you still have to buy that iPhone.
 
There aren't many tests in which it performs better than the iPad 2. Assuming this is real, it seems like its being bottlenecked by something.
 
Chundles said:
I don't know what any of those tests mean but when I compare my iPad 1G to what will be my new iPad there are a LOT more stars.

I like it when there are lots of stars.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. And who said it was fake? Why do you think it is fake?
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B179 Safari/7534.48.3)

Can I play MLB The Show on my iPad, I think not. Yes I still buy dedicated portable game systems! I do own an iPad 2 and while I use it daily, do not game on it, nothing interests me. To each his own, all these devices are great. The Vita is plenty portable if I'm carrying my work bag, I don't even notice it.
 
grahamnp said:
There aren't many tests in which it performs better than the iPad 2. Assuming this is real, it seems like its being bottlenecked by something.
Click to expand...

Most of the tests are limited to a maximum frame rate of 60fps and the fact that there is very little difference indicates that both the 2nd and 3rd iPads can hit that maximum rate. What isn't clear to me is whether the new iPad was running the test at it's full native resolution.

The off screen 720p tests aren't 'bottlenecked' by the frame rate limit and are probably the best measure of raw horsepower. In these tests the new iPad is significantly faster.
 
The Vita is a better gaming device, I rather be playing Uncharted, Wipeout than the boring Infinity Blade or Angry Birds anyday.

I like my iPad for reading, browsing and viewing which beats the Vita in every factor.
 
rirawin said:
The Vita is a better gaming device, I rather be playing Uncharted, Wipeout than the boring Infinity Blade or Angry Birds anyday.

I like my iPad for reading, browsing and viewing which beats the Vita in every factor.
Click to expand...

I think anyone with a bit of common sense should agree with that.

It's a simple case of whether it's so much better that it justifies the extra money and carrying the extra device. For a lot of people it is, but each year phones + tablets are getting more common and more powerful, and there comes a point for everyone where it's no longer worth carrying the extra device.

I remember years back PDAs were pretty popular. I had a high-end palm back then, it was an amazing device. My phone was totally useless in comparison for planning my life. Then the first semi-smartphones arrived. They ran windows mobile, and sucked quite a lot, but I could see the appeal of just carrying a phone instead of both. Then the iPhone came out, and PDAs totally died out. There just wasn't any point any more.

I see the same thing happening with the vita. At some point phones + tablets are going to get good enough (or perhaps better). Maybe they'll add physical controls, maybe there will be an add-on, maybe touch/motion games will end up better than joysticks. Maybe it'll be something new we're not anticipating. The big studios are going to write for these devices first instead of the consoles, and the vita + NDS will disappear. Might be a few years yet though.
 
psonice said:
You're comparing them as purely gaming devices, which is something nobody is going to do. You wouldn't buy an iPhone and only use it as a games machine any more than you'd buy a vita as a phone. If you think the iPhone is bad value as a games machine, the vita is an absolute outrage as a phone ;)

This is the whole issue - you need a phone, and you likely want all the extras that go with it like camera, email, browser, and all the apps. That means you already have something in your pocket like an iPhone. So when it comes to a games machine, you already have the iPhone, while the vita is an additional purchase, and an extra box to carry. If you buy only the vita it's cheaper, but you still have to buy that iPhone.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it
 
striker33 said:
I stopped reading when you said the Vita was too expensive.
Click to expand...

You should have also stopped quoting after the first quote ;).

But, what you are not considering when I say price is more expensive, coming from my perspective (and many people who aren't the really hardcore gamers (cause I like gaming and I don't just play silly stuff like Angry birds, actually don't even have that game), who buys her smartphone when her contract is out, I'm paying a little more (sicne I go with higher storage) for my phone but it does a lot more. It functions as my phone and as my computer away from my computer. I can justify that.

But the Vita is only for playing games and will not replace the functionality I need with the smartphone. So I already have a device that works for mobile gaming play that I can't replace with the Vita. Sure, it's not as nice but it will go a lot more places with me (since the Vita is so big it's not going to go many places with me since it won't even fit in my purse). To buy the Vita, I have to pay 250 dollars more just to play games (sure, it will do it better, but I can do fine with my iPhone. Shoot, I have more games right now than I have time to play. Eventually I'll get to FFIII. And I haven't even gotten Chrono Trigger yet. Sure, even the more serious (non angry bird type) games are usually old games re ported over but they are still fun and will meet my gaming needs on the go just fine (in fact in some ways better since it will go with me much more places than the Vita).

So the only market I find Vita will get is the really hardcore people. Even those who still enjoy a more serious game, with how popular smartphones are, may just find they have no justification for the Vita. (Now I'm not silly enough like some people to think smartphones compete with consoles but honestly neither do the small portable players either so they really do have to try to get the mobile gaming market).
 
I'll add my two cents on the Vita vs iPad:

Lots of people want a portable PS3/Xbox. The problem is that Sony is a lost company. I want Microsoft to make a portable Xbox because they seem to be more focused and not distracted by the proprietary media business side. Microsoft already has Windows Phone 7 to use as an OS so they don't need to make some fugly bubble OS just for their portable and their success could lead to more Windows Phone 7 users so it's win win.

Here's why I don't like Sony's portable (I own a PS3, and a PS2 and PSP before that)
-Studios outsource development for portable games. The big time developers are making their games for the home consoles, not the portables. Uncharted is the first example of this and probably not the last. This was the case with the PSP with Resistance, God of War, etc.
-Sony's fear of piracy makes them unfriendly to pirates...and loyal customers at the same time. We can't download digital versions of our UMDs for free. We have to buy Sony's expensive memory cards to download them onto anyways.
-No on board storage and no included memory card at all. Just bad sneaky business that makes you think the console is $250 when you HAVE to buy a memory card to save game data.
-Same hardware for 5+ years (the PSP was 7?). With the iPad, you get the new technology every year or you can use your current iPad and still play games. Some people might not see this as a con since that's how the gaming industry works.
-Games are too expensive. Escape Plan is a typical gimmicky phone game that would have been sold for $1-$3 if it were on the iPad.
-You can play your PS3 games or HD rereleases on the go....but you have to buy them again. This may be the developer's fault and not Sony's or maybe both. I don't care who's fault it is. It sucks for consumers.

+Physical controls

I think everyone who wants a portable PS3/Xbox is praising the Vita for what it represents and not for what it is. It's our only hope as a next generation portable so it's hard to root against it but, having been totally burned as a early adopter of the PSP, I'm willing to wait it out to make sure Sony doesn't f up this time around.
 
tigress666 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Being an owner of all existing game consoles, an iPad, iPhone 4, a 3DS, PSP, PSP Go and a PS Vita, I can honestly say that I've never had so much fun playing a video game since the Sega Dreamcast, when playing on my new PS Vita. I am not a Sony fanboy but I do purchase their notable products from TV to gaming.

Comparing the Vita to iPhone/iPad/smartphone gaming is comparing apple's to oranges. Any gamer here can vouch for this.

It doesn't matter if the Vita is big or chunky, I carry it around with me in my jacket pocket without it being bothersome and believe or not, I play it home more than my consoles. It's still a very portable game console no matter what you think.

Have you ever tried it for a week or so, playing complete games of MLB 12 The Show? The feeling is simply palpable.

To me, this is the best portable gaming device ever created. It's freakin' fast, it's great to hold while playing, and that screen...man...it's black level and contrast should be seen to be believed.

I agree with you on the price though, but heck, paying CDN$519 for the 16 gig iPad is equally painful, so no arguments here. A price drop will surely gain it momentum, something the iOS devices only get when they're at the end of their model cycle.

Just simply saying that if one brings the Vita to any iOS argument, it deserves an honest opinion from people who have actually used it. :)
 
Last edited:
Benchmarks at half the native resolution of the ipad 3 are useless. What i've said all along, the ipad 3 is no faster than the 2 at it's native resolution. All that power they added was simply to drive the higher resolution display.

At native resolution it won't feel any faster than a 2.
 
maclook said:
I'll add my two cents on the Vita vs iPad:
I think everyone who wants a portable PS3/Xbox is praising the Vita for what it represents and not for what it is. It's our only hope as a next generation portable so it's hard to root against it but, having been totally burned as a early adopter of the PSP, I'm willing to wait it out to make sure Sony doesn't f up this time around.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one burned by the PSP before. Well, I was...it simply did not fulfill it's potential. I can honestly say that the Vita is a totally different beast. Having owned it since it's launch I've had so much fun with it than the PSP. Games on it now (and there's lot's of notable ones) are better developed than the launch games on the PSP. The hardware and software on the Vita is well developed, fast and full of potential...something that the PSP lacked at launch.
 
Last edited:
psonice said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for taking the time to explain. The iPad does have an advantage over the Vita since developers know how to program it and the Vita is new. I think the real thing to note is this means Android has the biggest hurdle to overcome.
 
donster28 said:
You're not the only one burned by the PSP before. Well, I was...it simply did not fulfill it's potential. I can honestly say that the Vita is a totally different beast. Having owned it since it's launch I've had so much fun with it than the PSP. Games on it now (and there's lot's of notable ones) are better developed than the launch games on the PSP. The hardware and software on the Vita is well developed, fast and full of potential...something that the PSP lacked at launch.
Click to expand...

That's reassuring. I'll probably end up getting one before the end of the year.

I would have bought it already if Uncharted had online multiplayer. That would be awesome. One thing I'm waiting for is a good multiplayer experience. MvC looks like the best online game for now. Once it gets a shooter, like Uncharted or CoD, I'm all in.
 
blackNBUK said:
Most of the tests are limited to a maximum frame rate of 60fps and the fact that there is very little difference indicates that both the 2nd and 3rd iPads can hit that maximum rate. What isn't clear to me is whether the new iPad was running the test at it's full native resolution.

The off screen 720p tests aren't 'bottlenecked' by the frame rate limit and are probably the best measure of raw horsepower. In these tests the new iPad is significantly faster.
Click to expand...

That does make sense, thanks for the explanation. If that is the case, it is misleading for them to give anything less than 5 stars for a maximum score. They should probably update that.
 
How can you compare the Vita to the iPad? Gaming on the iPad is ridiculous, on the Vita you have two analogue sticks and proper buttons, not to mention it is properly sized for your hands. I love both and for different reasons but the Vita simply offers a better games console experience in your hands. I know there are a lot of Apple fanboys here that don't have a Vita and want to defend the iPad, but just use a little bit of common sense, we are not saying the iPad is bad, we are saying the Vita is a better gaming device. The iPad isn't a gaming device, and that is shown by lack of physical buttons. This severely limits the gaming experience but that is ok, because that is not what the iPad is for!
 
A Macbook Pro said:
How can you compare the Vita to the iPad? Gaming on the iPad is ridiculous, on the Vita you have two analogue sticks and proper buttons, not to mention it is properly sized for your hands. I love both and for different reasons but the Vita simply offers a better games console experience in your hands. I know there are a lot of Apple fanboys here that don't have a Vita and want to defend the iPad, but just use a little bit of common sense, we are not saying the iPad is bad, we are saying the Vita is a better gaming device. The iPad isn't a gaming device, and that is shown by lack of physical buttons. This severely limits the gaming experience but that is ok, because that is not what the iPad is for!
Click to expand...

My son has a Vita.

The Vita would be great for me except for the fact it has a tiny screen. Amazing piece of tech...for sure. I love playing it for brief moments, but a screen that small for gaming is not good on the eyes. It's a much better teenager device....young eyes are needed.

9.7" with 2048 X 1536 will win every time for me.

The term "game" has NEVER been defined as having to use physical joysticks or buttons. You talk about common sense....well...

The iPad is indeed a gaming device for millions. With all due respect, a game does not have to be an FPS, or RPG or some action title that demands physical buttons for precision. Of course when I play Counter Strike...it's my desktop. Yes, I still play....and own.... on CS ;)

Time to open the eyes a bit MacPro :rolleyes:
 
Why are we comparing a multi-tasking/ed tablet to a portable game system, solely/mainly used for gaming?
 
Hoggles said:
My son has a Vita.

The Vita would be great for me except for the fact it has a tiny screen. Amazing piece of tech...for sure. I love playing it for brief moments, but a screen that small for gaming is not good on the eyes. It's a much better teenager device....young eyes are needed.

9.7" with 2048 X 1536 will win every time for me.

The term "game" has NEVER been defined as having to use physical joysticks or buttons. You talk about common sense....well...

The iPad is indeed a gaming device for millions. With all due respect, a game does not have to be an FPS, or RPG or some action title that demands physical buttons for precision. Of course when I play Counter Strike...it's my desktop. Yes, I still play....and own.... on CS ;)

Time to open the eyes a bit MacPro :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The almost litterary killing feature of the vita is its battery life. its to short, and therefore im backing away from the device.
 
I've read a few reviews but there is hardly any graphic benchmarking. Let alone more gameplay of Sky Gamblers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back