This video says it all...
Printable View
Summary: Game gear wins.
What would be interesting though would be to wire a fully charged 3DS battery into use for the Game Gear and then see the outcome. I'm not exactly sure what the specs on the 3DS are, but as long as it's greater than 10V 850mA it'd be a more balanced test.
Well it is Nintendo, what do you expect?
Everything will be worse than anything else on the market. iPods probably have better battery life and graphics (probably cheaper too).
I had already lost my interest in the 3DS, but this now certainly gave me a new perspective when looking at the Game Gear.
I'd still want RGB-out or a better screen though.
Composite output is a more preferred & universal choice, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
I'd suggest investing some money in getting a Game Gear RGB de/encoder PCB manufactured, because making the board yourself is tedious as all hell. It makes the CCAM look like an RCA mod...
I'll probably buy a 3DS to play the new Nintendo games, but not for right now...
There's also a lot of other variables to consider: 3DS has variable power consumption depending on what it's doing (playing DS games is less intensive than 3DS or multimedia, and some 3DS games may be more intensive than others) . . . then there's variables on the GG's end depending on the model GG used (late models have significantly better life) and the types of batteries used.Quote:
Originally Posted by xelement5x
10v 850mA doesn't really say much about anything . . . what matters is the mAh, and using good quality alkalines (as in the video) could give an advantage.
The 3DS's stock battery is listed as 1300 mAH, WAY, WAY less than good alkaline AAs. (so the GG would have 9V at something like 2000-2500 mAh)
Edit:
Wow, almost 7 1/2 hours on the GG with continuous play (not intermittent play -so no rest for the batteries) . . . I wonder if that's a Majesco GG. (even so, those are quoted at ~6 hours max)
The difference being that the 3DS comes with a rechargeable power supply. Where as with an out of the box GG, you're feeding it a steady diet of AAs.
Yeah, don't forget that quality batteries today tend to last longer than they did back in the Game Gear's heyday. We can thank digital cameras for that! Also, the 3DS's battery is 3.6v.
Standard, good quality alkaline AAs shouldn't have changed much since then . . . neither have NiCd rechargeables or cheap-o dry cells (zinc-carbon batteries).Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
I wonder how many of those old battery life accounts were done with crappy dry cells. (would be less than 1/2 the duration of Alkalines, more extreme for continuous play testing -dry cells have far more serious voltage drop issues as they discharge, and tend to die temporarily for a few hours after being under heavy continuous load -alkalines do that to a much lesser degree, lithiums almost not at all)
What's available today that wasn't then are NiMH rechargeables with double (or more) the capacity as old NiCd cells (and far less of a problem with partial discharge) and lithium cells (specifically Li/FeS cells outputting 1.5V -so usable for standard AA/AAA/D/C batteries, unlike the 3V li/MnO2 cells).
Good NiMH cells rival Alkalines for charge capacity. (you can technically recharge normal alkalines too, but it risks rupture -moreso after multiple charges- . . . they used to sell Alkalines specifically intended for recharging fairly commonly, but I haven't seen those around recently)
Or you could just use NiMH rechargeables for similar battery life as the Alkalines in that video. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Bastardcat
Investing in a few (or more than a few) NiMH cells and a charger is a really good idea for almost anyone . . . unless they have few to no commonly use devices with batteries.
For many things I honestly prefer standard batteries (especially common AAs) to built-in battery packs. Sure, it involves a bit of work to swap in a freshly charged set of batteries, but you don't have to worry about charging the system (just do a quick swap -so long as you've got a good supply of batteries on hand), and you can easily upgrade to higher capacity cells. (or opt for alkalines or lithiums if you wanted) Plus you avoid the hassle of a device-specific charger to misplace/break or forget to take with you. (I'll take the original GBA over the SP for that reason . . . and the form factor -just the lack of lighting is the problem)
If you're on the go, you could also swap in new batteries if needed. (used to do that on road trips, vacations, camping, and various other outings with down-time involved -actually, going to my dad's SCCA races left a lot of down time like that)
Of course, back in the early/mid 90s, you basically had crappy dry cells, alkalines, and NiCd rechargeables to choose from, and only Alkalines gave a good battery life. (NiCd are a bitch to charge properly too) The battery technology used in the 3DS obviously didn't exist in common use either. :p
Wow that is surprising, don't own a 3DS myself, but I thought the idea was neat.......for a while. A mate has one and it was good to play, but I could see it would a gimmick.
I have to purchase some new rechargeable batteries to revisit my NDSi backlit GG, just so damn busy with other stuff.
You'd be lucky to get 2 hours with an Atari Lynx.
People just like to exaggerate. I never felt the Game Gear had a bad battery life. Not as good as the Game Boy, sure, but still not that bad, and definitely better than the Lynx. Maybe some people were buying their batteries at the 99-cent store or something.
Nor do I remember battery life being a big deal back in the day. People preferred Game Boy because it was cheaper and had Tetris and Mario, etc. At least, that's what everyone said about the Game Boy when I didn't have one and they did. None of them said they got one because the batteries last longer. In fact, when the Pocket came out, it had much worse battery life than the original, and that didn't seem to be often commented upon.
Did someone say Tetris?
Gameboy Tetris > Most Lynx and Game Gear games combined. You pick it up, and you just can't stop playing it.
This is coming from someone who REALLY loves his Tetris though, so take that as you will.
Jesus fucking Christ, OVER 7 HOURS!?, go Game Gear! I never knew it could this long, lol.
EDIT: It kinda makes sense though on why the game boy last longer than the game game. The dam thing was only black n green, the gear had black lighting and colors.
Does it matter what kind of battery is in the Game Gear??
I use only Enegizer....
No, it was stated in the video that the unit was purchased in '95. It still definitely has a later motherboard revision than most Game Gear owners have.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
OI!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWarrior
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvHtK...eature=related
The Nomad was the worst offender. I remember when I bought mine back in 98 and i'm leaving TRU and on the bus damn the thing dies in less than an hour. But it had a great LCD screen back then.
I still plan to do the mod where you replace the screen with the modern one that can last up to 8 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Shocker
I fail to see the significance in this comparison except for the fact that a low tech handheld outlasts (power wise) a new system with more processes, amenities, etc.., that require a larger demand on the power supply. What next, comparing a 64 Plymouth with a 2010 BMW?
sounds good to me. Do you have a modded one?Quote:
Originally Posted by chessage
Quote:
Wow, almost 7 1/2 hours on the GG with continuous play (not intermittent play -so no rest for the batteries) . . . I wonder if that's a Majesco GG. (even so, those are quoted at ~6 hours max)
Yeah, Nomad battery life estimates are about 2-3 hours, which is lower than any other old handheld I know of... though the TurboExpress, at 3 hours, is just about on par with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Da Shocker
As for the GG, apparently earlier models did get like 4-6 hours (maybe on the lower end of that scale?), but yes, later on they improved it. I have the manual with my Majesco GG, which says that you should get 7 hours of battery life. In comparison, my Game Boy's manual, which is from 1993 (though I don't know of any model changes for the GB between its launch and replacement), says to expect 35 hours. From my experience I would say that is accurate. The Lynx is estimated at 4-5 hours for a model 1, 5-6 I think for model 2. The Virtual Boy's manual says seven hours. All of those except for the GB, of course, used six AAs. Replacing six AAs every couple of hours would get very expensive...
Oh, the Game Boy Color only gets 10-12 hours, and the Game Boy Advance is about the same. The GB Pocket only got ~10 hours, but it uses AAAs instead of AAs like the rest of these systems. These three also use only two batteries instead of four. Still, the GBC or GBA are a good step down in battery life from the original GB, even considering the number of batteries. It's a more powerful system with a better screen, so it gets worse battery life... and now that problem, that the batteries aren't able to hold enough power to get decent battery life in consoles, has returned with a vengeance with the PSP, 3DS, and Vita, all of which get awful battery lives. Of course the 3DS does get a better battery life than three hours when you turn down the brightness, turn off the wi-fi, and turn down or off the 3D, but really, given how much batteries can hold, there isn't much they could do there, and the same is true for Sony. Battery technology simply doesn't increase at anywhere near the same rate that computer technology does.
The reason it beat the 3ds is because battery technology has improved vastly in almost 20 years.
Fair enough. Batteries seem to last longer these days, but admittedly I am more prone to be using either good quality alkalines or NiMH rechargeables now. Back in the day I'd use whatever I could dig up in around the house or what I could convince my mom to buy. Mostly I used the AC adapter.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Again, I also wonder what sorts of batteries were used in those tests . . . as well as in anecdotal accounts and complaints.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
I remember the GBP getting much less life than the GBC (maybe GBA) and obviously even more distant compared with the brick GB (at least the units we have). That's all with similar brand/types of batteries used.Quote:
The GB Pocket only got ~10 hours, but it uses AAAs instead of AAs like the rest of these systems.
How did you come up with your numbers for these? Did you test any of them yourself? (the 20+ hour life of the GB was disputed heavily recently in the Game Sack thread . . . it was mentioned that 10-15 hours was usual with modern alkaline batteries -at least with the unit Dave was using -and in the same thread, it was mentioned that the GBP was only getting ~5 hours, or worse in some cases)
They could sacrifice size/form factor slightly to facilitate moderately bulkier batteries with substantially higher capacities. (-the battery expansion/replacement kits for the PSP barely add a slight bulge to the system, but add substantially improved battery life)Quote:
Of course the 3DS does get a better battery life than three hours when you turn down the brightness, turn off the wi-fi, and turn down or off the 3D, but really, given how much batteries can hold, there isn't much they could do there, and the same is true for Sony. Battery technology simply doesn't increase at anywhere near the same rate that computer technology does.
The 3DS's battery is listed as 1300 mAh, which seems pretty low compared to what you get with many off the shelf NiMH cells even (let alone higher-end Li-ion batteries in modern handheld games/laptops/cell phones/tablets/etc).
I certainly wouldn't have minded a system somewhat closer to the size/shape of the original DS if it meant far more battery life. (not to mention the old DS is much, much nicer to hold, has better d-pad, and better face and shoulder buttons -though the d-pad and buttons of the GBC/GBA are still better IMO) For that matter, something closer (or identical) to the old DS's form factor, but using the DS-lite's revised hardware (and screens) with a larger battery than the Lite would have been really nice to have. (a more ergonomic, more rugged system with better battery life and equal quality screen as the lite -plus no protruding GBA carts)
My family used almost exclusively alkalines (usually energizer or duracell -more the former, though sometimes other common brands or generic stuff), and almost never any dry cells (be it the basic "general purpose" ammonium choride cells or the "heavy duty" zinc chloride cells). In fact, we pretty much only had that latter around from products that came pack-in with cheap-o batteries . . . or maybe if we got extra batteries from relatives or something. (I seem to remember my grandparents or uncle bringing batteries over a few times) Oh, that and a short period when we got batteries from the thrift store before realizing the low prices weren't a bargain for such weak batteries.Quote:
Originally Posted by GohanX
As far as I can remember, our handled games, radios, 2-way radios, TV remotes, wireless controllers, clocks, etc all lasted pretty much the same as they do now . . . with maybe a very slight improvement. (but even with the promoted duracell ultra, the contemporary energizer thing, "titanium" branded batteries, etc, I never saw a huge difference -at least no more than usually from lower-end alkalines vs the "good" ones . . . lithium is another story though ;)
Granted, my memory is mostly limited to 1993/94 onward, and didn't include handheld consoles (aside from crappy built-in LCD games) until my brother and I got Game Boys around 1997/1998.
We also tried NiCd rechargables for a while, but my parents got fed up with the poor reliability and charging/discharging issues. (we started using NiMH pretty heavily as soon as those became really common ~5-6 years back)
Alkaline batteries may have moderately improved since the early 90s, but I doubt dramatically. (they did get a fair bit more affordable though -relative to prices of dry cells . . . and the latter often not being sold at all anymore, aside from lantern batteries) One thing's for sure: dry cell performance hasn't changed at all in the last 3 decades. ;)
Another thing that's always been true for alkalines over dry cells is shelf life: good alkalines (and even most cheap ones) will stay good (ie near full charge) for years on end (especially if stored in a cool, dry place) while Dry Cells can degrade much more quickly. (lithiums have extremely long shelf lives on top of high capacity -the latter more so for some than others due simply to having more reactive material crammed into them -usually also priced higher)
Again, I highly doubt it's improved much at all for alkalines, at least comparing the better quality ones then and now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clessy
What has changed is alkalines becoming totally dominant as the de-facto consumer standard batteries (over dry cells, which were still more popular in parts of the US in the early 90s -let alone other parts of the world), and with those you'd have less than 1/2 the duration in most cases. (poor performance under heavy load, generally low capacity, poor shelf life -especially after partial discharge, etc)
If any of those old battery tests (or consumer complaints) were done with cheap-o dry cells, it's no wonder they ended up so poor. (the GB doesn't fare very well on dry cells either)
How about the Game Gear and the 3DS with 3D off, Wifi off..and see who's the winner....
The type of alkalines does matter, but I'd guess that (Lithiums aside) that's just going to move things up or down a bit, not radically change the battery lives of systems... but I've never done a direct comparison test, so I'm not certain.Quote:
Again, I also wonder what sorts of batteries were used in those tests . . . as well as in anecdotal accounts and complaints.
Well, the GBP is estimated at 10 hours, the GBC at 10-12 (or maybe slightly above that), so I would think that on average the Pocket would last several hours less, yeah. I have never owned a GB Pocket myself, though; I do have original GBs, GBCs, and GBAs, however.Quote:
I remember the GBP getting much less life than the GBC (maybe GBA) and obviously even more distant compared with the brick GB (at least the units we have). That's all with similar brand/types of batteries used.
The ones where I say "from the manual" -- that is, the Virtual Boy, Majesco Game Gear, and original Game Boy -- come from my manuals for those systems. The other ones mostly come from Wikipedia or other online sources. They aren't entirely accurate, but these things vary anyway, so there aren't specific, one-number answers anyway.Quote:
How did you come up with your numbers for these? Did you test any of them yourself? (the 20+ hour life of the GB was disputed heavily recently in the Game Sack thread . . . it was mentioned that 10-15 hours was usual with modern alkaline batteries -at least with the unit Dave was using -and in the same thread, it was mentioned that the GBP was only getting ~5 hours, or worse in some cases)
My own experiences line up with their estimates, for the VB and GB; I've never used my GG with batteries, I just plug it in. As for the VB, after getting it I put in some batteries. I played through both games I owned (VB Wario Land and Vertical Force), and played one of them a second time through most of the way (both games are a couple of hours long), before they stopped working. Now, VBs don't actually drain batteries -- instead, when the batteries get down to about a third, the system starts resetting constantly, in my experience. So at that point I had to take them out, and had this pile of low-life-left batteries. I decided to put the in my original GB and play Kirby's Dream Land 2 from the beginning. I finished the game before they finally died. That's some pretty solid battery life.
As for the GB, I have always said that I thought the system gets 35-40 hours. We had two GBs, mine from late 1993 and another one from 1994, and I always remember it getting quite good battery life, and lasting a long time. I did also have a rechargeable battery pack, which didn't last nearly as long as the batteries, honestly, but had the big advantage of being rechargeable, and working as an AC adapter too. Unfortunately the technology used for early '90s rechargeable battery packs didn't hold up too well and both stopped holding much of a charge after a few years.
Then, in Christmas '98, I got a Game Boy Color. It was pretty cool to have a color system, but I clearly recall how much worse the thing's battery life was than my original GB. With the original GB I'd be able to put batteries in and just play for a good long time without worrying about it, but with the GBC the battery life was much, much worse, certainly less than half that of the GB's (considering that it uses half as many batteries). I remember finding it kind of annoying. :) And as for the original model GBA, the estimate that it has about the same battery life as the GBC sounds about right to me. I didn't get an SP until last year, so I played the original GBA for years.
So yeah, I'd say that for most of those systems, both personal experience and wikipedia support what I'm saying. The only one with any contention is the original GB, where you do see numbers all over the place (from 10 hours to 40), but I pretty strongly think that the upper end of that is what you actually get...
Oh, and for all systems, I'm pretty sure that volume level affects battery life too, I've always heard that... and the GBC or GBA are more likely to have to be at full volume than the original GB, unless you're using headphones (which I have never often used with handhelds, even though I know it does get you stereo I usually just don't bother), because the original GB has a much louder speaker than the GBC or GBA have. Those two are somewhat pathetic in comparison, volume-wise...
Yeah, but if they used cheap-o "zinc-carbon" dry cells (ie "general purpose" or "regular duty") rather than alkalines, there would be a massive difference. (like a factor of 3:1 or beyond to 5:1 in worst cases -depending on the specific dry cells used and how the system is used -dry cells have poor performance under heavy/continuous loads as well as poor shelf lives -to they only perform best with intermittent use within a few days of installation: heavy continuous use or extended periods of non-use will tend to give far poorer overall play time)Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
The so-called "heavy duty" zinc chloride Zinc-carbon cells don't fare much better compared to alkalines, but are still more competitive than the cheaper ammonium chloride type. (roughly 1/2 the performance of alkalines, depending on circumstances -could be slightly more than 1/2, but could also be closer to 1/3)
Basic Zn/C cells are worse than NiCd batteries in some respects. (definitely poorer performing if comparing fully charged cells -the problem is comparing used/mischarged NiCd cells -Zinc Chloride cells fare better than either though)
The fact that those types of batteries were much more common in the early 90s (and were much cheaper than alkalines) makes that even more significant.
So in a worst case, a GB getting 35 hours on good alkalines might get under 6 hours on zinc-carbon cells, or in a best case (ideal operating conditions for the Zn/C cells) might get ~12 hours. (or ~11 and ~18 hours for bad/good cases of Zinc Chloride cells -maybe 20 hours in an absolute best case)
On that note, it looks like Wiki removed the 35 hour statement for the GB article.Quote:
The ones where I say "from the manual" -- that is, the Virtual Boy, Majesco Game Gear, and original Game Boy -- come from my manuals for those systems. The other ones mostly come from Wikipedia or other online sources. They aren't entirely accurate, but these things vary anyway, so there aren't specific, one-number answers anyway.
However, unless you've compared other GB models or you know you have an early model, the battery life may have varied for earlier revisions.
I have no idea why they removed that (though it's still mentioned in a reference, actually, they just took the "35" out of the text -- so they cite a source that mentions the 35 in the citation, but don't mention the 35 number in the text... um, yeah, that sure makes sense. Hmm.), but I'd just count it as more Wikipedia incompetence, probably.Quote:
On that note, it looks like Wiki removed the 35 hour statement for the GB article.
I mean, the "35" number is right there in the manual. Anyone with a GB manual should be able to confirm it.
While that is possible, I've never heard that Nintendo made any revisions to it... did they?Quote:
However, unless you've compared other GB models or you know you have an early model, the battery life may have varied for earlier revisions.
I'm sure that they would only have been referring to good, alkaline batteries when they printed those numbers, and not any of those lesser kinds, yeah.Quote:
So in a worst case, a GB getting 35 hours on good alkalines might get under 6 hours on zinc-carbon cells, or in a best case (ideal operating conditions for the Zn/C cells) might get ~12 hours. (or ~11 and ~18 hours for bad/good cases of Zinc Chloride cells -maybe 20 hours in an absolute best case)
I'm planning on doing the black-&-white composite mod once my resources align:Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSciFi
http://web.archive.org/web/200710260...ga/mkiicct.gif
They did. Remove the battery cover and peer into the hole left by it. You should see 'DMG-CPU-##'. Late 'Play-It-Loud' Game Boys even use glob-top ICs.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
So this only gives you a B&W picture output? That sounds kind of un-fun...Quote:
Originally Posted by chessage
Ah. It says DMG-CPU-06, I believe. Maybe 05? I think it's a 6 though. Anyway, anyone know if the internal changes resulted in improved battery life? (again, mine's from late 1993.)Quote:
Originally Posted by chessage
3ds without 3d..... Kinda proves how absolutely worthless it is doesnt it?Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightWarrior
I assume it was some conflict over common/anecdotal experience, though I don't see any note or explanation in the discussion section for that article.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Black Falcon
It would have been rather odd if they hadn't (given the long production run of the GB) . . . sure, they made almost no changes to the NES chipset from 1983-1994, but a handheld is a bit of a different context. (console revisions are usually to reduce cost where practical, but handhelds have power consumption as a major consideration, as well as screen quality, built-in speaker, bulk, and weight as concerns -bulk never changed and I don't think the screen changed much or at all, but I think the speakers may have improved on later models and the real area of contention would be power consumption of the chipset and LCD driver -efficiency of the voltage regulator would also be a major factor)Quote:
While that is possible, I've never heard that Nintendo made any revisions to it... did they?
Yes, I'm sure Nintendo did (and other in-house tests for GG, Lynx, etc), but I wonder if many (if not most) of the stories/anecdotes on battery life were using non-alkaline cells. (even more so in Europe where those types were even more common -and apparently still make up a fairly significant chunk of sales to this day)Quote:
I'm sure that they would only have been referring to good, alkaline batteries when they printed those numbers, and not any of those lesser kinds, yeah.
Even back then though, a smart consumer would opt for alkalines as the higher price per battery wasn't far off from being equal price per capacity (alkalines would need to be more than 3x the price of non-alkalines to be poorer values -somewhat less for zinc choloride cells), and then there's the greater shelf life and drain characteristics that make Alkalines an even better value. (much less likelihood of wasting the batteries with sub-optimal conditions of operation)
Then again, many consumers are stupid and/or ignorant and will go for the more attractive option (if only superficial) more often than not. (it's up to marketing to make a given option more attractive -and tactfully pointing out the advantages in a simplistic/non-confusing manner for the layman is obviously one major aspect of said marketing . . . aside from more manipulative/less honest aspects ;))
Compare it to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by xelement5x
Lol, very true. I've got a couple of 1 ASIC ones though and I was thinking about trying the viletim mod. It's still a hassle and a half though.Quote:
Originally Posted by chessage
**Update!**
I've finally checked the power draw of my (1993) VA1 Game Gear with a regular game (Super Columns):
- ~250 mA with the contrast and volume all the way up.
- ~240 mA under normal viewing and listening conditions.
So, even if you use low capacity (1800 mAh) alkaline batteries, commonly found both then and now, you'll get more than 7 hours of use.
Revisions after VA1 should draw the same or lower.