32X vs GBA. Which one is the more powerful platform?

I've seen most of graphical showcases in both systems and i still can't figure it out. GBA has, of course, many games that look like they can give the 32X a run for it's money, like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1OuB-Qe6nk

This looks almost like an early Saturn/PS1 game (excluding the 2D car sprite)!


But then there is only 1 game on the 32X that makes me think its the more powerful console. This one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl-0zsM_za4

I know it's not the best version of Doom out there due to the controls, sound and unfinished content but damn, is this thing smooth! Its much smoother than the GBA version even when you play the GBA version with the "static lighting" option. 32X Doom doesn't need such an option because is smooth enough with dynamic lighting. It also looks a bit higher res too but i'm not sure.


So which system is really the more powerful?

In terms of raw power I'd imagine that the 32X is much more powerful due to the dual CPU design but putting it into practice is a whole different kettle of fish. Also the first time I've V-Rally 3 on the GBA and I'm absolutely staggered by how good it looks for a GBA title - really goes to show not only how much power the GBA has, but how developers were able to tap into it. Bare in mind that it was released just over a year after the GBA too. Ridiculously impressive.

The experts have gone into detail about this a few times and I believe that it really depends on what kind of game or scene you are doing.

Something to consider when comparing released software: one hardware was discontinued just as it started and was barely pushed at all. The other became one of the most successful platforms in history and was pushed to "the limits".

In terms of 3D? Because neither system is good at either IMO. When it comes to 2D, GBA wins in general IMO (even with the lower res and lower sample rate of the PCM channels). GBA has transparency options that just don't exist on the 32x. That's one tipping point for me.

I think I'd say they are both in the same ballpark but each have different pros and cons between them, like the GBA has more color but the screen resolution is lower than 32X, the 32X can have up to 6 buttons the GBA only 4, the GBA hardware is more integrated and reliable but the 32X can do CD games, apples and oranges.

What is the same between them is content production especially in 3D graphics since you'd do the same or similar setups on both platforms, as in 3D backgrounds with sprite objects or vice versa. It's cool to bridge the subject because a fair amount of GBA games could run on 32X well natively coded but not emulated.

It's a fair comparison since they aren't that far apart from each other. I think the 32X had decent performance for its time but too expensive while the GBA seemed a little handicapped by a lack of dedicated 3D hardware or a higher res screen in 2001.

Maybe they aren't that fair apart from each other, but their architectures (specifically video functions) couldn't be more different. The 32x is more flexibly, but not necessarily more powerful. So I think if the 32x had been a success, we would have seen more of what could have been exploited from its design.

That said, there are some things that can kinda be compared.

Sprites on the 32x can be from the Genesis, but I would consider those auxiliary mode stuffs (relating to background stuffs). I would use the 32x VDP to draw the main sprites, because not only is the Genesis lacking in color but it's also lacking in other attributes related to sprites of 32bit systems (specifically scaling/rotation/distortion/etc). I would also use it to draw at minimum one BG layer. The 32x would probably have to fall back to 30fps to boost numbers and attributes. But it has the flexibility to do that. Raster base design(ish) of the GBA (typical game) doesn't have that luxury. But then again, the GBA has an INCREDIBLE sprite pixel limit per scanline capability. It's pretty impressive. And the fact that it has up to 4 BG layers, makes it quite powerful. For scaling/rotating those BGs, it falls back to 3 - but that's still powerful.

On the 32x, everything strictly relies on the cpu itself. If you want transparency, you have to ditch the Genesis layers/video (or exclude it from the transparency effect), and run 16bit color mode (twice as slow as 256 color mode). That means double the work just for plotting pixels. And for transparency, that means doing math operations every pixel for that targeted area. And if you have multiple layers of transparency? Even more processing time. That's easily going to drop the 32x into 30fps or lower and/or put severe limits on the graphical design. This where I see the GBA pull ahead.

So it depends, just like comparing the Genesis to the SNES. :)

2D wise the GBA just murders the 32X. It can scale and rotate a ton of sprites, have mode 7 layers and transparency all at the same time with 60 fps. For 3D the 32X should win, though the GBA can manage pretty well.

Different kind of system, released in different time and with different commercial success (thus support).

BTW the good conversion of Doom on GBA was Doom II, not the first.

GBA was meant mostly for 2D games however it had a few 3D bunch banking on the novelty to play a 3D game on a handheld.
Here a few of the most impressive 3D GBA games (aside from V-Rally 3):

Payback
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryNR9nVB2z8

GT Racers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFoisKCA4uI

Top Gear Rally (although the tracks are really 2D)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTR1Wh3rnS0

Asterix and Obelix XXL (footage not from real hardware)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWBUdgIa0oE

Star X (a StarFox wannabe)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP97CULZQrw

ATV Thunder Ridge Racers (Not 3D, good ol' voxel):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwYk5SmZVZI

I can see how transparency on 32X wouldn't work well compared to GBA, I think I'd probably put a 32X transparency layer over regular Genesis layers, less color than GBA but that's always going to be the case.

Color management would be different enough between the 2 platforms with the GBA being easier in game assets at 512 colors onscreen while 32X still has to conform to Genesis technical restrictions in most of its graphics layers. Both can display a 16-bit color image the same but the GBA would likely be able to do it faster and has the 512 color option.

Yeah the sprite transforming hardware is a given on GBA that you always have it available for use and its strong. On Genesis you need either the 32X or Sega CD to sprite transform faster otherwise you're just leaning on the CPU poorly, I can see how you'd want most if not all the sprite transforms done by the 32X like tomaitheous suggests.

Frame rates are going to be higher on GBA than 32X but it's newer chronologically so not too surprising. I'm old school enough to find 30 fps just fine so 60 fps doesn't mean a deal breaker as far as cross platform support on both.

I'd probably use CD audio support to give the 32X some features above the GBA in a cross platform situation, GBA has the performance but the 32X could have the music and voice tracks difficult to impossible to fit on a GBA sized cartridge.

I look at GBA's 3D game library and see what could have been on 32X with longer developer support, lots of software based rendering of polygons, texture maps, and voxels. It's a very interesting tier of graphics since it can encompass wildly different methods with no clear winner, just better methods per game design.

I think game design makes or breaks performance comparison, your basic 2D game isn't going to render that much different on either like an 80s arcade title, if there's tons of sprite rotation it's going to run better on GBA, and despite some stumbling blocks I think the 32X can do 3D better.
The last point is hard to substantiate mostly because there are 1074 GBA games and only 40 for the 32X, one got lots of love and support and the other is mostly a footnote as an interesting homebrew hobby platform like the Gizmondo. One example could shed some light, could Virtua Fighter 32X run on a GBA, can the GBA software render as many polygons as fast compared to the 32X using hardware?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BladeJunker

One example could shed some light, could Virtua Fighter 32X run on a GBA, can the GBA software render as many polygons as fast compared to the 32X using hardware?

---

Who knows...
Namco approach for Tekken game on GBA was still entirely 2D and Sega Rosso efforts on GBA (example: Sega Rally) weren't that great.
The only thing comparable is this little homebrew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSjoL86nHjA

Another difference between 32X and GBA was that the latter was never marketed as a 3D machine instead as a 2D machine with "fake 3D effects".
While 32X had AM2 working on it (for this I mean a first party developer specifically tasked for polygonal games), Nintendo never pushed for that way (all the polygonal efforts were from smaller third-party developers).

I was always rather curious as to why 3D was not attempted more often on the GBA when it clearly showcased time and time again that it could easily do Super FX level stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Folco

Who knows...
Namco approach for Tekken game on GBA was still entirely 2D and Sega Rosso efforts on GBA (example: Sega Rally) weren't that great.
The only thing comparable is this little homebrew:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSjoL86nHjA

Another difference between 32X and GBA was that the latter was never marketed as a 3D machine instead as a 2D machine with "fake 3D effects".
While 32X had AM2 working on it (for this I mean a first party developer specifically tasked for polygonal games), Nintendo never pushed for that way (all the polygonal efforts were from smaller third-party developers).

---

Neat, very cool demo, lower poly than 32X Virtua Fighter but still quite impressive. :D Didn't think anyone had tried this. :lol:

Yeah it's really amazing what 3D people could get from the GBA when it wasn't made for that intentionally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4JcpKJZUxQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH1vDkRNYew

The 240x160 is what holds it back for me in terms of 3D graphics on GBA, not that the 32X was doing much better all the time lol. Seems like 240p is the minimum 3D graphics need, where even the DS' 256X192 was still chunky even on a small screen.

GBA also was around when 3D graphics were getting used for everything including sprite prerendering which I don't think works very good in low resolutions. With so few pixels you need that hand drawn pixel art quality like Wolf 3D has, not just for details but also to tweak contrast higher and make the sprites more iconic. With 3D models it can often just look smudgy and low contrast like really old cellphone photos, especially worse the smaller the object gets IE. car looks okay but a human can turn into static. I'd have probably painted over 3D prerenders to address these issues.

They experimented with JPG style compression on GBA in Broken Sword and Driver 3's cutscenes but I don't think it worked very well, high block compression and low resolutions don't mix. Figure the 32X probably wouldn't fair any better with that image storage format.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Folco

BTW the good conversion of Doom on GBA was Doom II, not the first.

---

Hmmm, this looks smoother than the first GBA Doom but at the same time i think it looks lower res, or there is something wrong with the textures, it doesn't look as solid IMO (in the tiny screen on the video it looks fine).

I think 32X Doom is still far superior. Maybe raytrace engine games were easy to do on a 32X or something? I mean, the 32X version was so botched in every area except the graphics/frame rate. I don't know if Doom counts as a 2D or a 3D game (since most people agree the GBA is superior in 2D graphics).

Also, i feel like Virtua Racing Deluxe and Virtua Fighter are much better looking (and smoother) than that Star X game.

Personally, I think the best examples of the GBA's 3D power are the Need for Speed games and its FPS titles:

NFS: Most Wanted


NFS: Own the City


NFS: Porche Unleashed


Ice Nine:


Ecks Vs. Sever 2

Ecks Vs. Sever doesn't look too hot with it's lack of texturing on floor and ceilings... reminds me of SNES Doom (though much smoother). Ice Nine looks good though.

Doom was the reason why I always wanted to get a 32X. I loved DOOM on the PC and I always felt it deserved a console version just to play it through a controller. I never got to own one back in the day, but man, oh man, did this game ever live up to my expectations years later. It may not be the best graphical port, but it runs extremely smoothly. And the fact that this is done through my Genesis controller... Mind-blowing awesomeness!

But I don't know why I've never thought of 3D games when comparing the 32X to the GBA. Instead, I've always tried to look at the 2D titles from each platform. To think what could've been had the 32X made more awesome 2D games. How would Symphony of the Night look on the 32X? Or Final Fantasy Tactics? Maybe even Strider 2...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

Hmmm, this looks smoother than the first GBA Doom but at the same time i think it looks lower res, or there is something wrong with the textures, it doesn't look as solid IMO (in the tiny screen on the video it looks fine).

I think 32X Doom is still far superior. Maybe raytrace engine games were easy to do on a 32X or something? I mean, the 32X version was so botched in every area except the graphics/frame rate. I don't know if Doom counts as a 2D or a 3D game (since most people agree the GBA is superior in 2D graphics).

Also, i feel like Virtua Racing Deluxe and Virtua Fighter are much better looking (and smoother) than that Star X game.

---

Doom isn't a 3D game, nor does it have textured mapped polygons. That's probably why the 32X is decent at handling it (the linear vertical access of reading out the wall graphics). But the 32x seems to fall short when it comes to more complex 3D (texted stuff). There were a couple of games (some mech game and a asteroid game) that showed the 32x struggling and/or limited in its delivery.

There's the point of lower res, but on a held that lower res isn't as perceivable as lower res on TVs; just think about the distance and scale of the screen relative to your eyes. Even if I sat 5-6 feet away from an old 19" TV, is still wouldn't be as small as the GBA screen in my hands. I forget what it's called, but there's a drop off in perceived resolution related to the distance to your eyes (there's a factor for this that was the basis for the max resolution of SDTVs). The GBA is more powerful in relation to its screen/resolution, for 3D, than the 32x is to its resolution output.

Those GBA examples posted in this thread are quite impressive. I definitely change my mind. GBA kills it in all aspects except resolution and higher frequency sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomaitheous

Doom isn't a 3D game, nor does it have textured mapped polygons. That's probably why the 32X is decent at handling it (the linear vertical access of reading out the wall graphics). But the 32x seems to fall short when it comes to more complex 3D (texted stuff). There were a couple of games (some mech game and a asteroid game) that showed the 32x struggling and/or limited in its delivery.

There's the point of lower res, but on a held that lower res isn't as perceivable as lower res on TVs; just think about the distance and scale of the screen relative to your eyes. Even if I sat 5-6 feet away from an old 19" TV, is still wouldn't be as small as the GBA screen in my hands. I forget what it's called, but there's a drop off in perceived resolution related to the distance to your eyes (there's a factor for this that was the basis for the max resolution of SDTVs). The GBA is more powerful in relation to its screen/resolution, for 3D, than the 32x is to its resolution output.

Those GBA examples posted in this thread are quite impressive. I definitely change my mind. GBA kills it in all aspects except resolution and higher frequency sound.

---

Resolution is the GBA's Achilles heel. It looks good on real hardware, but try playing it anywhere else and it's all just one big blurry mess.

Well, i played more of Doom 2 on the GBA. It's a more faithful port of the PC version, having the levels mostly uncut, you can see enemies from behind, the sound effects are similar, the music is decent and even the doom guy's face does that evil grin when you pick up a new weapon.

Graphically, however, is inferior than the first Doom GBA port (making it even worse compared to the 32X version). First few levels are very smooth but the frame rate suffers in later levels. Also, this one is lower resolution than the first Doom port and completely lacks dynamic lighting. It's the same thing as when you enable "static lighting" on the first Doom port. Only difference is that you cannot enable it at all in Doom 2.

32X version of Doom has higher resolution, higher frame rate (that never dips too much) and has dynamic shadows, flickering lights, etc. I play all versions side by side and i feel a big difference in 32X Doom as it's faster and more responsive. And remember how 32X Doom isn't even a good port. It's rushed beyond recognition in every aspect of it which makes me think that an actual good port would have been even better graphically (maybe full screen?)


So yeah, with Doom and Virtua Racing/Fighter in the library, i'm convinced that the 32X is stronger than a GBA. The GBA can probably handle textured polygons better but the number of polygons is higher on the 32X. And Doom proves to me that 32X raw speed is faster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

So yeah, with Doom and Virtua Racing/Fighter in the library, i'm convinced that the 32X is stronger than a GBA. The GBA can probably handle textured polygons better but the number of polygons is higher on the 32X. And Doom proves to me that 32X raw speed is faster.

---

Oh really? This is doing way more than Doom GBA, and the framerate is about the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39NMtbf0L1c

It's really low-resolution though. It would look really bad on the GBA player for the GameCube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

Oh really? This is doing way more than Doom GBA, and the framerate is about the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39NMtbf0L1c

---

Hmmm, apart from the very low resolution, i don't think the levels have as complex architecture as some Doom levels. It kinda looks more blocky to me, if that makes sense.

However, this does have sloped areas and shapes, much like the Build Engine. Speaking of which, i wonder how good a Duke Nukem 3D would be on 32X, with a properly sized cart ofc.

^ Try Yeti 3D demo for GBA if you can.
It's by far the most impressive FPS on GBA hands down (of course it's just a demo).

Here a photo I took of it a few years ago:
http://i.imgur.com/LiEsT.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

However, this does have sloped areas and shapes, much like the Build Engine. Speaking of which, i wonder how good a Duke Nukem 3D would be on 32X, with a properly sized cart ofc.

---

It does more than that, you can look up and down and the polygons distort "correctly", not like the build engine where they stretch in a strange way. Perspective correct 3D mapping is a lot more intensive than doom style raytracing. Yeti 3D is even more impressive but has even bigger pixels :p.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5_cnZabhig

I think the demo is using the "mode-7" hardware (actually not mode number 7 on the GBA) to scale the image to twice the size.
Doom on the SNES did the same trick.

Sorry for the double post, accidentally replied instead of editing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

It's really low-resolution though. It would look really bad on the GBA player for the GameCube.

---

If your objective was to play Nightfire on the Gamecube, you can always get the Gamecube version.

So, if the GBA is more powerful then it's safe to assume both Doom games on it were poorly made ports technically? Because obviously the 32X version wipes the floor with both of them (graphically i mean). I know i said it enough times already but it's not like the 32X has many games to compare with anyway...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gogogadget

If your objective was to play Nightfire on the Gamecube, you can always get the Gamecube version.

---

Lol that is a just a coincidence that there is also a Gamecube version, what if there wasn't? This a discussion on what the 32X and GBA can do, anything and everything has 'better' options as I could play Smash TV on MAME but it's interesting how well it runs on a NES or Sega Master System. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulis

So, if the GBA is more powerful then it's safe to assume both Doom games on it were poorly made ports technically? Because obviously the 32X version wipes the floor with both of them (graphically i mean). I know i said it enough times already but it's not like the 32X has many games to compare with anyway...

---

Well Carmack worked on 32X Doom. Having the guy who invented the rendering engine work on the port probably helps a lot. Not only that, considering the border around the screen and the doubled pixels, it's pushing around the same number of pixels as the GBA game (only at a better framerate).

It could be faster, but I wouldn't call the GBA ports poorly made technically. Not every developer is Carmack ;). Do remember that the saturn port runs like shit and it's a much more powerful system than either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BladeJunker

Lol that is a just a coincidence that there is also a Gamecube version, what if there wasn't? This a discussion on what the 32X and GBA can do, anything and everything has 'better' options as I could play Smash TV on MAME but it's interesting how well it runs on a NES or Sega Master System. :|

---

Still, the "it wouldn't look good on the GB Player" whilst true is kinda a moot point, as the games are designed for the tiny screen.

That being said, Nightfire GBA & Duke Nukem Advance are more polished than Doom 32X (still a pretty good port), there is a MOH Underground GBA version too but I vaugely remember it being horribly choppy and nasty to play. Doom 2 GBA was pretty good for a handheld.

I think double wide pixel resolutions are better than 2X pixels, at least some crispness is preserved in 3D rendering. I mostly mulled over 2X pixels in trying to cultivate conditions for a frame rate playable between 4 people split screen on a 32X.

It does help to shrink the screen compared to blowing it up like in emulators or on a Game Boy Player but I still think it can get too chunky to be satisfactory, like a lot of sprites in GBA FPS titles are pretty much unrecognizable unless you stand next to them because they haven't been optimized for a screen resolution that small. I started out on the 'no backlight' GBA so I'm talking from an og perspective when I speak of chunkiness.

Actually speaking of emulators I'm surprised they don't just cheat with the FPS titles and just bump the screen resolution higher with GBA titles blown up to larger screen sizes.

There's also this insane game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL5k8k1JfYc

The texture distortion makes the PS1 look good, but still, damn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gogogadget

Still, the "it wouldn't look good on the GB Player" whilst true is kinda a moot point, as the games are designed for the tiny screen.

That being said, Nightfire GBA & Duke Nukem Advance are more polished than Doom 32X (still a pretty good port), there is a MOH Underground GBA version too but I vaugely remember it being horribly choppy and nasty to play. Doom 2 GBA was pretty good for a handheld.

---

Yeah it's moot, not really sure what people expect from GB players lol.

Well yeah a bit more polish on Nightfire GBA and Duke Nukem Advance, I liked DNA technically but wasn't fond of the level design much. Yeah MOH on GBA is garbage, very unpleasant to play. Dark Arena is decent but really plain visually and in gameplay. Back Track is a step below Dark Arena overall but I think it is optimized for the small screen well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3gpeecABC0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

There's also this insane game:

The texture distortion makes the PS1 look good, but still, damn.

---

That looks decent, still collect GBA, only $7 the first place I checked.

Wonder if that song is split between chip tune and voice track, always figured that would save space on cart based games?

Not much texture distortion, pretty steady as far as where you're usually looking at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gogogadget

Still, the "it wouldn't look good on the GB Player" whilst true is kinda a moot point, as the games are designed for the tiny screen.

That being said, Nightfire GBA & Duke Nukem Advance are more polished than Doom 32X (still a pretty good port), there is a MOH Underground GBA version too but I vaugely remember it being horribly choppy and nasty to play. Doom 2 GBA was pretty good for a handheld.

---

The point was that the hardware doesn't have to have as much pixel fill, or detailed textures, because of the small screen. Once you blow up the image to be close to the size of what the 32X is being asked to output, it doesn't look so great.

I was reading an article in Retro Gamer magazine, about why the Saturn port of Doom ran so horrible. It turns out that Carmack was being a dick, and wouldn't allow the team to use the 3D hardware of the Saturn to render the frames. He told them that they had to use the CPU to do it, just like he had when he created the PC game.

Oh, Carmack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I was reading an article in Retro Gamer magazine, about why the Saturn port of Doom ran so horrible. It turns out that Carmack was being a dick, and wouldn't allow the team to use the 3D hardware of the Saturn to render the frames. He told them that they had to use the CPU to do it, just like he had when he created the PC game.

---

God what an asshole.:furious: And that isn't ignorance on his part, consoles have always had some kind of dedicated hardware in rendering to make up for having slower CPUs than PCs. You're using the hardware to its fullest or your failing especially when you're doing something hard to render. :mad:

Quote:

---

I was reading an article in Retro Gamer magazine, about why the Saturn port of Doom ran so horrible. It turns out that Carmack was being a dick, and wouldn't allow the team to use the 3D hardware of the Saturn to render the frames. He told them that they had to use the CPU to do it, just like he had when he created the PC game.

---

But.. Doom isn't a 3D game. That's probably taken out of context. I can't really think of what Saturn hardware is going to help with this. Using a BG layer for the floor? But the game doesn't have a single flat floor (there are steps in the level/floor plan). You'd have to recreate the game into a real 3D engine. Maybe that what the issue was (recreating a new game engine from scratch, or simply porting the raycasting design).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kamahl

Well Carmack worked on 32X Doom.

---

I wasn't aware of that, i thought he only did the Jaguar version. Cool to know, i suppose it makes a lot of sense now :p