yeah, i know it's a mobile device, and it isn't bad, don't get me wrong, but considering nvidia are a graphics card company, i expected something with a little more bang.

i had quake 3 arena on PC and it really wasn't all that demanding even back then.

recommended specs:
Win 95/98/ME/2000/NT 4.0
Quake III: Arena
PII300Mhz or AMD K6-350Mhz
16MB video card
64MB RAM

taking that into consideration, i don't think it's all that impressive. i certainly wouldn't mark it up as the next big thing.

Good to hear that u are back

I want more videos of gameplay! Please

Only this specs? Really? With these specs, it's not easy to run a PSX emulator on WinMo.

But I agree this Nvidia device may be really good....or not, wait and see, it mainly depends on what will be developped and ported to it.
When I see the power of glide ES and the only very few games that handle it....!
When I see that the TG01 (and so HTC Leo and Acer F1, etc) are so powerfull that only FpseCE can push them to their limits (in terms of gaming, of course, you could try to zoom on an 40Mb image, it will be slow lol)

Agreed. Now Unreal Tournament III would have been another story.
Still though, the other videos of the Tegra look amazing.

You must said him that you are a beta-tester of new super-mega-uber ( ) FpseCE 0.10!!

well... i think that is at normal quality and without AA.

i think this gives you a better idea of how demanding the game was.

the CPU is a pentium 3 @ 700 mhz
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/gf3q3/page4.asp

what i'm not sure about (as it doesn't say) is what settings they're using on that nvidia tegra video. is it normal quality or high quality and what level of AA is it using, etc.

if it's high quality and has 4X AA, it is comparable to a geforce 2 gts. i would say that is fairly decent performance, but not mind-blowing.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/gf3 ... igh800.gif

maybe there is more going on there than is apparent. if they demoed a few other games we would probably get a better idea of what it's capable of from a gaming standpoint. it also depends on the prices you'll be paying for the mobile devices using the chipset.

bcmiko I agree the snapdragon phones are pretty big but the screens do look pretty. I've been tying resident evil 3 which works ok but characters can't talk so I have no idea what's going on also ffvii which is playable but sloow! if u could try them that would be great. thanks heaps

As I said here :

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=110&start=10

X86 CPU's and ARM CPU's are not comparable...

An 1Ghz ARM CPU is far behind an X86 Pentium 350mhz CPU... Because their architectures are strictly different.

Remember how big a cpu-fan is needed on a X86 CPU. An ARM CPU does not need any fan....
If ARM CPU'S were powerful enough, without any need of a cooling system, they would have been used in desktop computers to avoid the use of those ugly fans.
I just want to say that "heat" likes the words "calculation-power"

Well not quite.
Cortex CPU is more like atom than previous ARM's and if you compare cortex A9 to atom(A9 is OoOE and Atom is in order and it makes a great difference) you will see that cortex is better choice when it comes to rough power but unfortunately it won't run full version of windows. Dual core 1Ghz A9 SoC would easily beat Atom based netbook. Remember just because the architecture is different it doesn't mean it's worse.

You're right, I just found some things related to ARM vs X86

http://www.pocketables.net/2008/10/mid-battle-aigo.html
http://www.instat.com/promos/09/IN0904636WHT.asp

It means (in our case) that CPU is not the only responsible of slow speed. We can probably bet on bus-speed, RAM-speed, Kernel and other things that don't use the maximum power the CPU can deliver.