AMD?s 28nm Next Generation Mobile GPU Lineup

Source

 

Been posted. Again, who knows, who cares. With new consoles arriving in 2013 there is no doubt hundreds of millions of dollars invested in both AMD/Nvidia to produce the GPU for the systems. That money then expedites new PC videocards and will benefit PC users. That is why I bought my rig now because I know in two years it will be not that useful due to new consoles pushing the limits of even the highest rigged desktops. I remember running an AW with 7800 GT's SLI with AMD FX-60 CPU and the COD2 and Tomb Raider looking "A bit" better than the console. However there is NO WAY that old rig could handle Crysis 2 at the graphical fidelity of the consoles today. So I know that a 2 year old Laptop (m18x with dual 6970s) will not be playing console ports very well then...just the nature of the "next gen" truly coming in. So I will upgrade in about 2 years. While these 7 series may be beasts..it's almost irrelevant when Crysis 2, Metro2033 and every other game out that is intensive runs like butter on here.....So going from 60 t0 80 FPS is "cool" it won't matter in 2013 when new consoles hit the market and my 60 turns to 15 and the GPU's out in 2012 hit 25FPS. Just the nature of the way gaming has gone and with developers being console friendly first.....it's going to require even stronger PC GPU's to push since less time is being optimized for them. Sad but true. Still...I'm a PC gamer for life; wallet willing.

 

Just curious where you pulled this 2013 out from.

Nintendo U will be barely better than the 360 and about on par with the PS3. Really all three will be on equal footing. This means can expect the Nintendo U to be at about the performance of a PS3 for the until likely 2016.

Microsoft has not announced development of a new console. And Sony has adamantely said they are not and Sony believes the PS3 still hasn't been utilized to it's full capabilities yet. Both MS and Sony last I read want their consoles to last another 4-6 years.

Because neither Sony or MS has announcd next gen consoles, Epic Games have not been developing UE4 still. It's been put on the back burner since they said they won't develop another engine until the next gen consoles are announced.

Also I don't think MS or Sony has profited enough from the 360 or PS3 where they would be satisfied to put another bunch of billions into developing next gen consoles. It was announced in 2008 that Sony had lost 3 billion in development costs for the PS3. I doubt Sony is read for another round considering they are in recession and still recovering from the Earthquake. And Sony is losing to LG, and Samsung handidly in their other markets. Sony has a lot more to worry about than a PS4.

And lastly for next gen consoles, both Sony and MS have to give the game developers a heads up. The next gen UE4 alone probably will take a few years to finish developing and UE3 is by far the most successful console engine ever. And the fact that Epic Games has stated they are not currently developing UE4 is a huge hint to me and contrary to your statement of 2013. A year isn't enough time for Epic Games to get UE4 ready for the next gen consoles.
- CryTek and DICE for example just spent 3-4 years developing their CryEngine 3 and FrostBite 2 for the current gen consoles and likely nearly hundreds of millions of dollars. I doubt they would have done all this if their engines were only going to be used until 2013 when both were released nearly at 2012. CryEngine 3 SDK was just released to the public a month ago. So according to you, these two premiere cross platform engines have a life expectancy of less than 1.5 years?
- According to you Nintendo made a massive mistake with their Nintendo U releasing a console that will only be on par with the current 360 and PS4 for less than a year before being completely obselete in 2013?
- How do you backup your claim of 2013 when neither AMD or Nvidia, or IBM or Intel (whoever MS/Sony wants to develop their next gen CPU) have announced any developments for next gen consoles?

 

I really wouldn't worry about new consoles killing our rigs. Even though die shrinks have lowered temperatures for a given performance, parts are putting out more heat now than they ever did.

If sony and microsoft want to keep consoles down to the size they are currently then they'll be very limited as to what they can put in. Imagine trying to put an i7 with 580's in SLI in a case the size of a 360 or PS3.

 

Quite agree, I am not worry about console killing PC gaming anytime mainly because you can't play your console games without a TV. So to the OP, I say don't worry about it.

 

I have nothing to back my claim about new consoles being released. But xbox came in 2005 and 8 years is pretty long. Longer than normal. Sony said a 10 year lifestyle but that usually means that they continue support when new consoles are released. Sony Vita is released in Japan this year and concrete details only came out this year. I wouldn't be surprised for MS to announce a new console in 2012 with a fall/Winter 2013 release date.

Regarding, GPU/CPU on PC, that never translates to consoles. Just look at what was in PC compared to the 360 during the last generation. The PC was a lot stronger but it just doesn't matter as PC performance doesn't translate to console performance and a LOT of money is used to put a very strong GPU in the consoles (moreso the 360 than Ps3 as Sony chose to focus on pushing Blu-ray and Cell for their own purposes other than gaming).

Again, my rigs were always more powerful than consoles upon release but kept on par with multiplat performance. A desktop rig to compete usually needs to be out the year they debut AND be a powerful rig at that. To think that a laptop of 2011 will compete is just not logical. I'm not dissing PC's; it's just the way it is. It ALSO didn't stop me from buying a high end laptop a month ago (M18X). I'm just being realistic as to what to expect from the laptop and if I can get two great years of gaming out of it; then it was worth it; about 1200 a year. I spend more than that on my Viper maintenance on my car.

I don't buy with future proofing in mind; especially on the notebook front. A few GPU upgrades can help but it's nothing like upgrading a PC from a price/performance and longevity ratio. Getting Vbios support, PSU support, etc make the "well is MXM" a moot point for me. IF it works..awesome. But I don't plan a purchase assuming the 7 series will work. I just buy when I need to buy to play what I need to play.

But COD2 Max Settings in 2005 required a pretty beefy computer and the 360 ran it beautifully. The computer I ran COD2 was an AW with FX 60 processor (one of the best at the time) and two 7800GT's. That computer QUICKLY outdated with UE3 engine coming out and new console pushing software. To make things worse, there has never been a clearer and more prominent time that PC developers are mainly focused on console sales (which are getting more like computers with online, ability to milk microtransactions, and multiplats). Therefore the emphasis from our favourite developers will most likely be console 1st, then PC which leads to rushed ports. Just look at Crysis 2 and the rushed DX11 pack that came out.

Hey these are just my opinions that do influence the way I look at the gaming market and my purchases. I hope others have diverging views and I am sure I am missing factors as well!

Personally, I am READY for new consoles. The ps3 and 360 hardly get used because i think they are VERY long in the tooth and I wouldn't mind going "next gen" as it is a relatively nice value proposition. I already have a nice TV so bring it on. Sooner the better in my eyes; but that's just me

 

Back then, high performance parts didn't chew through as much power. A single GPU can chew through as much power as a whole PS3 now. Although the processors used in consoles are usually different to PC's, the graphics is pretty much the same. I'm just saying that if they want to compete with PC's like the did last time, they're gonna have to chew through more power than current consoles do which means more heat, therefore better cooling is required. For better cooling you need a bigger case which is something consoles shy away from.

QED.

 

So game developers are putting new technology on hold for the next gen consoles? It seems like they're screwing pc gamers once again...

 

No that would have been the case last gen. The moves down to 28nm already improves cooling. They design chips completely different. Just look at laptop GPU's vs desktop GPU's of the equivalent and look at the size and heat. You aren't making logical arguments. The next consoles will likely have a GPU equivalent to whatever the most powerful card is at the time of launch on a desktop (give or take a bit)...just like last gen. And last gen had big cards in desktops, lots of heat, and everything you are already saying. It's just the nature of new consoles...they are amazing machines UP FRONT...for a fixed period of time. With your logic the ps VITA must be a miracle machine to have the graphics it does. But a highly optimized GPU that is 2 to 3 generations AHEAD of the most powerful GPU in tablets is something that is invested in up front to make money down the road with millions of systems and software sales to make up for the insane RandD to make the chips fly, perform and stay cool.

 

You honestly think nvidia and ATI will actually make a completely new architecture purely for consoles? If the console refresh is soon then they'll most likely be runnning GPU's stitched together out of fermi cores.

As for laptop GPU's vs desktop, laptop GPU's are their desktop counterparts except clocked down a bit and with agressive power saving. At the end of the day a desktop can ultimately push its parts far harder than any console ever would, and PC's usually have access to the same graphics tech as consoles. In other words PC's can use essentially the same componants but have the space to be able to push them far harder.

Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a PS3 or 360 clocked beyond 5GHz? That is the power of the desktop computer.

 

When comparing PC to consoles, remember:

1. PCs use decent resolution textures.
2. PCs actually render at 1080p.
3. PCs have a higher draw distance.
4. PCs run at 60-120fps as opposed to 30fps.

 

Also really who cares about consoles when comparing to a laptop.

I will never be lugging around a HDTV, a PS3 and controllers around like I can lug around my laptop wherever I travel. And that's why we are discussing gaming on a notebookreview forum!

 

Yep, I need 3 things (maybe 4):

Notebook. Power brick. Mouse. (maybe headphones).

Sorted.

 

but you could get a razor blade and not need a mouse...

 

How so exactly? Are you saying that the touch pad will replace a mouse?

 

Even they themselves had a mouse plugged in lol.

 

yes, with the touchpad. However, you seemed to miss the sarcasm.

 

Hahaha you made me lol

 

Try being a bored child some time ago. Then having one summer with no internet, one Dell Latitude X200 (the one with a docking bay, and a sweet Intel Extreme Graphics 2 IGP - this isn't the later Samsung designed Latitude X200, it's the old crapper that came from the same ODM that did a similar Gateway unit of the time).

And a copy of Halo: PC.

I eventually beat Halo PC on legendary, using only a touchpad, during that summer. It never occurred to me to buy a mouse.

 

However now you know that a mouse would have been a far better input device to use.

 

I still say playing SC2 with only a macbook pro touchpad in bootcamp is harder lol.