#168029 - DiscoStew - Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:15 am
I apologize to any that are friends of the blogger.....
.
.
.
.
.....but he's an idiot.
http://gear.ign.com/articles/970/970172p1.html
_________________
DS - It's all about DiscoStew
#168030 - Rajveer - Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:08 pm
"On paper, the DSi boasts a significant processing speed boost over its predecessor, jumping from 67 MHz in the DS Lite to 133 MHz in the DSi, but during our evaluations actual speed variations between the two were negligible."
"Like we experienced with the DSi's CPU speed enhancements, the benefits of the expanded RAM are hardly noticeable despite being four times that of the DS Lite."
Wonder what evaluation software he is running...is he actually saying that he saw any difference, whether negligable or not, between DS software processing on the Lite and i? Heh.
#168033 - elwing - Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:13 pm
lol, he was prolly wanting to see game running at twice their normal speed? sure they would be reappy playable...
#168035 - Kyoufu Kawa - Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:19 pm
| elwing wrote: |
| lol, he was prolly wanting to see game running at twice their normal speed? |
* snicker *
This is DS(i), not DOS.
#168036 - nanou - Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:11 pm
Oh my. That... that's embarrassing.
_________________
- nanou
#168037 - Miked0801 - Tue Apr 07, 2009 10:39 pm
Still lame cache as the DS though which will hamstring its x2 CPU and make card access even more relatively expensive.
#168038 - nanou - Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:08 pm
What else are you going to use all that RAM for? I think that was more RAM than anyone hoped for.
I agree though, I think they should have improved almost everything else first.
_________________
- nanou
#168044 - Miked0801 - Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:03 am
One never has enough RAM :)
#168045 - nanou - Wed Apr 08, 2009 1:32 am
It's true, but at that size vs. bus speed and various other bottlenecks, the extra space is mostly useful for caching right? Maybe my sense of proportion is off here, but I don't imagine filling the extra space with 'active' assets. (Unless you want to treat them GBA-style which isn't a terrible idea if it all fits.)
_________________
- nanou
#168081 - elwing - Thu Apr 09, 2009 6:19 am
| nanou wrote: |
| It's true, but at that size vs. bus speed and various other bottlenecks, the extra space is mostly useful for caching right? Maybe my sense of proportion is off here, but I don't imagine filling the extra space with 'active' assets. (Unless you want to treat them GBA-style which isn't a terrible idea if it all fits.) |
hehe, no more streaming... you can simply load all your assets at once, isn't that marvelous? :)
#168088 - Miked0801 - Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:29 pm
The caching I was refering to was the actual hardware cache. The DS was alerady hamstrung by its cache a bit and doubling performance and memory with the same size cache makes things worse.
#168171 - nanou - Sun Apr 12, 2009 10:03 pm
| Miked0801 wrote: |
| The caching I was refering to was the actual hardware cache. The DS was alerady hamstrung by its cache a bit and doubling performance and memory with the same size cache makes things worse. |
Yep, I had that in mind. I was thinking of the card access penalty. It's a shame that all the bottlenecks seem to be the same.
_________________
- nanou
#168172 - sgeos - Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:02 am
| nanou wrote: |
| Yep, I had that in mind. I was thinking of the card access penalty. It's a shame that all the bottlenecks seem to be the same. |
Why improve bottlenecks when you can just make the numbers bigger?