Nintendo DS vs Nintendo 64…so what’s more powerful?
With news a little slow during the holidays, and this discussion heating up on the Neogaf forums. I thought it would be fun to put the N64 and DS head to head and see which is more powerful.
First, let’s look at some screen comparisons. First up is Mario Kart 64 vs. Mario Kart DS.
Next up is Zelda Phantom Hourglass (DS) vs. Zelda Ocarina of time (64).
Now for the real test lets look at Mario 64 (DS) and Mario 64 (N64).
For you tech geeks out there, let’s get into some specs. (Specs Taken from HERE)
Nintendo DS:
- Main CPU: ARM 9, 67 MHz
- Secondary CPU: ARM 7, 33 MHz
- Memory: 4 MB main RAM, 656 kB VRAM
- Sound: ARM 7, 33 MHz
- 16 simultaneous channels
- stereo sound
- Graphical prestations/effects:
- ARM 9
- dual 256×192 screen resolution
- solid 60fps
- 120,000 polygons per second with all hardware effects @ 60 fps
- 262,144 colors
- 4 million vertices/second
- 30 million pixels/second fillrate
- Cel-shading
- Hardware fog
Nintendo 64:
- Main CPU: R4000, 93.75 MHz
- Secondary CPU: <unknown name>, 62.5 MHz
- RAM: 36 Mb (4.5MB) main RAM, 8.5MB with expansion pak
- Sound: <the unknown CPU>, 62.5 MHz
- 16-24 channels OR
- max. 100 simultaneous channels, though take 1% of the CPU each (developer’s choice)
- Dolby Pro Logic (1, not 2) Surround sound
- Graphical prestations/effects:
- <the CPU w/o name>
- 256×224 or 640×480 screen resolution
- lots of graphical sacrifice needed for a solid 60fps (like F-Zero X)
- 32,000 colors on-screen
- 150,000 polygons with all effects @ 60 fps (Nintendo says)
- 100,000 ” ” ” ” ” ” (benchmark says)
- unknown vertices and fillrate
- hardware fog, bi- and trilinear filtering
I am not a tech junky, but the argument can probably come down to this. With the smaller screen on the DS, it can do more with less. The N64 can render a few more polygons and effects than the DS, but with its smaller screen, the DS does not need as many polygons to do what the N64 can. The only thing the DS really has on the N64, is the time factor and the frame rate. The frame rate on the Nintendo DS, for most games is 6o fps. The N64 is said to go that high, but that can be argued. Also, developers have had 10 more years to play around with 3d graphics and are pretty good at making games look like they do on the DS. The N64 was the first 3d console, so give it a break, developers were just learning what it could do.
For the most part this isn’t very important, but I thought it would be fun to check out with the slow, holiday news day.
December 26, 2008
this is actually pretty cool, ive wondered about this comparison for a while. great article!
December 26, 2008
Thanks theo, this is what you get when i have a ton of time on my hands. I wish I could do something like this more often…that should be my new year resolution. That and become more awesome…if that’s possiable.
December 26, 2008
[…] Article here […]
December 27, 2008
The framerate on the DS always amazes me. It’s really excellent, and I notice it consistantly. Graphically, it reminds me of a PS1 game, but with a much nicer framerate. Which is actually pretty darn good.
Because of this, I keep wishing it had a joystick nub instead of a D-pad. The 3-d controls would be so much slicker!
December 27, 2008
I agree with you on the joystick…not to sure how they would pull it of with the DS that closes on itself. I love the touch pad, but there is sometimes it would be a lot easier if it had a joystick….Metroid for the DS is a good example.
January 17, 2009
The DS’ maximal polygon count is actually RIDICULOUSLY lower, on the area of ~2000 triangles. The high “throughput” values are, for all that I can see, bogus. (This is because of the .. peculiar rendering architecture of the DS, which can only handle 6144 vertices at a time)
January 17, 2009
@FeepingCreature
Yes, the 120,000 is the theoretical ‘polygon rate’ of the DS. And the actual triangles displayed that have all the lighting, textures, and animations is around 2048 triangles per frame. But if a game is running at 30fps or 60fps, you could conceivably render quite a few polygons total. I don’t think the 120,000 refers to the number of polygons that can be rendered on screen at once, I think it’s just a spec that could work for testing environments (without lighting, textures, animations, etc.), but that isn’t practical in every day game implementations.
I’m not saying the DS is better in all areas or even in polygon count than the N64, it’s just developers have found methods to make due, and have produced games that look as good if not better on the DS’ hardware. Whatever you think of the DS’ graphics rendering engine, it’s clear that it is much more flexible than N64 dev tools, so they can push more from the theoretical ‘limitations’ of the DS.
Check out the maxforums discussion on it: http://www.maxforums.org/thread.aspx?tid=533675
June 10, 2013
2048 polys per frame @ 60 frames / a second = 122,000 polys / second. Just sayin’.
December 31, 2010
REVIEW IT BEFORE YOU BUY IT!!…
#1 SITE FOR THE LATEST REVIEWS ON THE HOTTEST TECHNOLOGY HITTING THE MAINSTREAM!…
May 25, 2011
[…] the N64 being slightly better. I remember the DS being a little more powerful than the N64… Nintendo DS vs Nintendo 64…so what’s more powerful? Ok so I was wrong, but at least I did the research. The DS was still able to produce better […]
February 13, 2013
The N64 has a faster clock speed but DS has a dedicated 16 channel sound chip attached to the ARM7. (With GBA vs SNES this situation was totally reversed) while N64 does sound on the Main CPU with GPU housing the 2 channel stereo digital to analog convertor like the GBA. N64 has uses extra CPU cycle’s to mix sound which in turn hurts frame rates and physics. Dedicated sound chip on DS allows CPU/GPU to easily achieve 60 frames per second. N64 GPU has texture Ant-Aliasing but no edge Anti-Aliasing (jaggies but no pixelated textures) while DS GPU is reversed as it has edge Anti-Aliasing no texture Anti-Aliasing (pixilated textures but no jaggies)