I personally reckon that it's a 32bit system. The gba was-just at a far weaker level than the playstation 1. The ds is still weaker than a playstation-it just know's how to fake it
This question is so vague that there is no correct answer. __-bit could refer to pixel depth, variable size, processor instruction set size or data bus width. Whatever it is you want to know, you should be able to find here.
The DS plays like a 32-64 bit console. It doesn't really matter about what bit anyway. The PS1 was a 32bit console and the N64 was a 64bit console...it really didn't make a difference in that case.
True-at times a playstation game would look better than an n64 game which shocked me back in those days XD Armoured core...my kinda game...
The PS1 tended to have better looking games due to the use of CD's. Most if not all N64 games were compressed to fit into those cartridges. The PS1 rather went with multi-discs then compressing games...Which meant games on the PS1 tended to look clearer, but not faster.
I thought it was a tad faster to be honest...the ps1 But the graphics on the n64 is what made be become a nintendo fan-I was about to buy a playstation just before I discovered the n64. Well thanks to emulators and a chipped ps2 I'm happy
The N64 would've loaded and played faster due to the fact that it used a cartridge instead of Discs. Loading times are considerably slower with discs...the only positive of Discs is that they tend to hold more data then cartridges. The reason why the PS1 outsold the N64. I didn't notice any grahical differences at all. Other then the more dicey look the N64 games had (from games mostly being compressed), there were no differences in graphics.
I meant play speed-most psx games were at 60fps. Load times were of course the cartridge advantage : Maybe because of the speed it just looked better, the n64 was a tad blurry at times.
Yep, that's the compression of games. You could also notice the compression in PS1 games. Most noticeably in video scenes at the beginning of the game.
Many comparisons. While super mario 64DS made some of us think it's a 64bit console, truth is it's weaker... It's certainly weaker than a playstation as well. Truth is I'm totally confused-I thought this was at least 32Bit but loonylion came by... I'll just watch this for an explanation.
[me=tehuber1337]sighs[/me] As this thread was originally in the graphics board, I thought the TC might've been referring to pixel depth, but who knows.
Nintendo 64 is technically 64 bit (although its actually two 32 bit processors combined). PSX is 32 bit, so the N64 is more powerful than the PSX. DS is 16 bit, which puts it on par with the SNES and Megadrive II (Although its CPUs are clocked much higher, SNES main CPU was only 3.4Mhz if I remember right).
Hrm... What about (sorry to go off topic) the gba-that was advertised as 32bit. The ds is far more powerful..this is why I'm confused
The DS is 32 bit it uses two ARM processors, with the exception of the ARM NEON(ARMv7-A) all ARM processors are 32 bit. On the DS ARM7 processor : The ARM7TDMI processor is a 32-bit RISC CPU designed by ARM, and licensed for manufacture by an array of semiconductor companies. In 2009 it remains one of the most widely used ARM cores, and is found in numerous deeply embedded system designs. On the DS ARM9 processor : ARM9 is an ARM architecture 32-bit RISC CPU family. With this design generation, ARM moved from a von Neumann architecture (Princeton architecture) to a Modified Harvard architecture with separate instruction and data busses (and caches), significantly increasing its potential speed.
