Can a 680M compete with the PS4?

I can afford $2000. It's a lot of money, but I've spent more than that on hobbies in the past. The question is, how far can I stretch that money? Why should I invest $2000 in a laptop when I can buy something like a PS4 that's going to last me longer for a fraction of the price. I'm having a hard time finding a really good reason to drop $2k on a laptop, that's all. I'm trying to justify it by hoping it will last me the length of the PS4's life cycle, but even that isn't guaranteed, so it's tough.

I mean, for the same $2000, I can buy a PS4, an Xbox 720, a Wii U, and still have money left over. So I'm just trying to figure out what the best options are, that's all.

That said, PC games, specifically some RPGs that are PC-only, are very enticing, and I may spend the money just to have access to those games. We'll see.

 

@Dave, thanks for the clarification man. I am guessing Nvidia's Maxwell GPU is around 15-35 percent improvement over Kelper GPU. Hey Fluent, I think you should just buy the PS4 because you don't have to worry about upgrades, worry about outdated tech. driver issues, etc. With PS4/720 you can just focus on playing games and exclusive titles. As for me I might buy a PS4 after the price goes down and by then the PS4 have more exclusive titles, but for right now I am very happy with mine M18x-R2

 

Only you are going to be able to do a costs/benfits from your criteria. Basically you HAVE to want the notebook for the games or else you are right; the PS4 may be more cost effective. If you like the type of games PC offers, then you will likely jump on the PC bandwagon really well. Steam is AMAZING and the sales alone save you a TON of money. I would highly suggest you ditch the: "I could get a PS4 and other systems for the same price" thinking as it's a pointless debate. If you have the money and the system you want "The PC" has the games you are interested in; go buy one. If the PS4 only had a shelf life of 4 years people would still buy the next one. This is evidenced by Xbox to Xbox 360. Heck people would buy one at 3 years and be happy. I know I would. iPads are updated every year and many upgrade each time on those. So don't fall into the comparison between PS4 lifeline and PC. Who knows how long the life cycle will be. The mobile tech is moving at the most incredible of paces and these things called phones and tablets are a huge threat to the console AND niche PC gaming industry. It's killing the handheld market and with the new GPU's moving at astronomical paces, I wouldn't be surprised if the real niche technological gaming ends up going back to the PC almost exclusively in desktops and notebooks. The ps4 is already being marketed more as a "media hub" then the PS3 "most powerful supercomputer that does 120FPS in 4D." PC is always the system of choice for the bleeding edge, most customizable and biggest backlog of AAA games. It is the "master race" of System Wars. You either "get it" or you "don't." Console only people usually resort to the upfront cost of buying a PC and figure "I dun git it dood cuz I can get a $400 dollar console and eat chips on ma couch luls." Yet they don't take into account the cheaper new game prices, the ridiculously cheap backlog game prices, the 75% sales through Steam, Origin, et al., etc.

Do more research, get a PC that has the ability to have potential upgrades and then make a decision. Or just get a cheaper entry level gaming notebook AND a PS4. That's about all the input I can put into this thread. Peace and good luck.

 

Maxwell will likely double the performance of currently Kepler 680m.

And I agree totally with the comments about them not using top end proprietary components. I think this time around Sony is smart (as is MS if they do similar) to go with an existing tech and profit, or at least not take a it, from the hardware day one. But I think for Sony it was worth it in the long run with the PS3 because it helped garner control of the optical drive market. Blu-ray is the standard. I'd hope they'd also shorten the life cycle of consoles to about 4 years, 5 years max.

 

if you consider all the things you'd do with a gaming laptop aside from gaming, then a fairer comparison is the cost of your dGPU to a console. a couple hundred bucks is easily justified in that context.

 

Maxwell won't be out until 2014, and like HTWingnut says, it'll likely be double the performance of Kepler.

 

I'd probably go with the PS4, mostly because if I had kids, it would be easier to play with them on that than on a PC (assuming you want to play with them ). But from what I've skimmed throughout the thread, is the idea of buying a PS4 and a $1,000 laptop for the few RPGs you're interested in, out of the question? You could still have your mobile gaming, a decent GPU for dat eye candy and a PS4 + $500 to spend on peripherals, games, warranties, anything!

I dunno, I've never bought a "gaming" laptop and I'm way behind in terms of whatever you guys are talking about in terms of specifications and such.

 

I actually had that same thought, ton247. I'm thinking my best bet would be to buy a gaming laptop around the $1000-1200 mark, just to have access to those RPGs I want, and that would leave me enough money left over for a PS4 for family gaming and what not. That sounds like a plan to me!

Thanks again for all the responses in this thread, it's been very helpful as I try to figure this whole thing out. Long live gaming, man

 

I hope to go 780M and Haswell this summer/autumn ohh yeah - providing I can afford something like that - aaaand that's definitely not guaranteed.

 

Probably yes, since the PS4 is expected to have 8gb of ram and a processor clocked in at less than 2.0 GHZ, also you could do anything with a laptop, its portable. Also you could pirate games for a laptop easier than for a PS4

 

Maybe that will change considering the x86-64 architecture. Xbox games were hacked easily because of the similar fact. They really need to throw in a 1TB in these machines with so much stuff download only now.

 

look at how good crysis 2 looks for xbox 360. look at what its running on. then ask yourself if this xbox 360 had 10 times the power what would it look like.

now if you can imagine what it would look like ask yourself this, will my 680m be able to run this game.


IMHO. NO

 

If you decided to forgo the Wii U, the money left over would buy a more than decent gaming laptop. Sure, you won't be able to play everything at 1080p, max details, and FSAA, but it would still be quite solid. Then in two years, you can sell it and buy the next best $1,000-1,200 notebook, which will be even more capable. Rinse, repeat.

 

No. Just no.

CryEngine 3.0 was designed to outshine on the lighting spectrum with limited resources. Hell, if they made Crysis 1 on that engine--which they have done for the consoles--we wouldn't have had anywhere near as powerful a meme as 'But Can It Run Crysis?' everytime a new rig was released. Do you know how much better it would've run on a much weaker PC card? A 9800m GTX can put out more textures, better frame rates and the same 'wow factor' that the competing Xbox 360/PS3 architecture manages after considerable optimisation -- Crysis 2 looked good on consoles and on comparable output hardware on PC, it looked just as good, if not better. And yes, we compare the whole console to the graphics card because a lot of the PS3's magic came from the CELL's ability to handle post-processing as seen in exclusive titles such as Killzone 2 & 3 as well as the Uncharted series. It had an XDR RAM pool. Xbox 360 had a specific EDRAM pool that helped with anti-aliasing as well. You can visit the Beyond3D forums and read up on the technical abilities of both consoles and just how they were able to achieve the results they achieved with their hardware (Summary: It wasn't just a weak GPU doing magic). A fair comparison would be an upper 8-series (DX10) laptop GPU, and when it came to comparing proper multiplatform titles at the same resolution and settings, the PC counterpart won out.

Lol. 680m GTX/7970m will be fine for a good long while.

 

I love beating a dead horse as much as anyone, so here we go.

PlayStation 4 vs. PC graphics: Can Sony even compete? | PCWorld

 

I believe the PS4 will be on par with the 700 series GPU's from NVIDIA and the 8000 series from AMD. But these systems will be around for several years before new ones are released, or so I assume. Nonetheless, comparing a gaming console with a gaming computer is like comparing apples and oranges. They are two completely different systems that play games.

 

Yes and no. The next gen are all x86 based, so they are computers. The difference between consoles and pcs used to be all the extra things we could do on a pc - watch movies, play music, browse the web, social media, etc. With even the current gen and especially the next gen, this line is becoming even more blurred. While the overall utility of the pc still trumps that of a gaming console, they aren't nearly as far apart as they used to be.

 

I suppose that's true - there are certain similarities. But comparing the top of the line gaming computer with dual graphics, with the PS4 is different in many aspects. So much so, I wouldn't even debate it with someone beyond accepting they can both play games for years to come. I'm sure the PS4 and Xbox will provide outstanding performance - hell, I'm even gonna buy them. I just hope their prices are reasonable...

 

I'm convinced you never actually played Crysis 2 on the 360. It looks good for a console game. The PC version destroys it. The corners they cut to get it playable at a mere 30 FPS on the 360, even at a resolution somewhere below 720p, are obvious.

You still seem to think that there's some magical powers bestowed upon the silicon wafers inside consoles. There's nothing special about consoles. They're downspecced PCs running customized versions of games specifically tweaked to squeeze every last drop of performance out of a specific hardware configuration.

 

I hope so too, but didnt the PS3 launch at 500 or 600US iirc? I may actually pick up the PS3 first, I went with an xbox 360 and a cheap blu ray player last time around. Blu ray has died, and if i can get the ps3 for 200 or below, I am in.

And you are right, high end gaming pc/desktops will never be touched by a console, but I am glad the gap is getting smaller.

 

The PS3 launched at $500 and $600 price points. The former got you a 20 GB hard drive, no WiFi, and no built-in card reader. The latter got 60 GB, WiFi, and card reader. Both were fully backward compatible with PS1 and PS2 games while Sony stripped the latter out of future hardware revisions. They also dropped the number of USB ports to two from the launch models' four.

 

Eh? PS3 was compatible with many PS2 games but not all, and only a handful of PS1 games. The slim PS3 ditched the compatibility.

 

Seeing how the gpu in PS4 is pretty much going to be on par with 7970m... I wonder if the CPU will be the bottleneck?
I mean... we've seen how pairing AMD A10 with 7970m can bottleneck the gpu (reduce its performance in games)... so I'm just wondering what the underpowered Jaguar cores (meant for tablets, etc.) will do to overall performance.

Granted, its a custom made hardware... but still.

 

They can run all physics on GPU and leave CPU to just manage the OS. Having custom hardware means you can use it any way you want.

 

I'm a bit skeptical in general about the whole Jaguar concept. It's their ULV CPU line that doesn't hold a candle to Intel's CPU performance watt/watt. I know it's 8 cores, but that can only help so much with GPU.

 

There is a difference this time around.
The Jaguar cores are not modules but actual cores, so in that regard, we don't know how they compare to Intel alternatives in the same category (let alone their desktop versions).

As for the cpu being the bottleneck... I realize the physics can be delegated to the GPU... I'm just saying that speaking from what we've experienced on PC hardware to date... CPU's can bottleneck (slow down) the performance of the GPU because they don't have sufficient bandwidth or 'performance' to run it optimally - and since Jaguar cores are effectively meant for tablets (or ULV versions of apu's), I'm wondering whether this will have an impact on the gpu (given its projected performance capabilities) or is the custom design of this CPU/GPU combo made in a way that avoids this problem as it exists on latpops/desktops.

A similar analogy would be pairing an i3 IB mobile with 680m - resulting in probably lower gaming performance when compared to say i7 3720qm + 680m.

 

Right, but it's still ULV. Stick 8 Intel Atom cores together, what do you get? 8 slow cores, lol. Sure it can parallel process 8 threads but if the performance is low, then overall performance will still be low. Let's say you can segment a car engine into power per cylinder. Even if you can get 10HP per cylinder with the Jaguar, 8 cylinders is still only 80HP. Where a 50HP per cylinder Ivy Bridge with 4 cores is 200HP, still double the power. The 8 cylinder may smooth things out and be a little more efficient, but it still only produces 100HP. Similar concept with these Jaguar cores.

 

I understand... this is why I asked if the Jaguar CPU (depending on its performance and overall capabilities) will 'impair' the gpu in the PS4 in its overall performance... and if it does, then why did they decide to pair such a weak CPU (ULV) with a very powerful GPU?
Cutting costs is a likely answer... but regardless, how will this affect game development?

 

The good news about the next gen of consoles is they are x86 based, basically they are computers. So we may see developers start by designing the game for a PC, and then porting to consoles, not the other way around (consoles ported to PC, like we have been getting for the past few years)

For example, this - Watch Dogs is targeting PC as lead platform | News | PC Gamer

 

The problem with porting is that Sony won't be using DirectX, it will be writing directly for the hardware so there will still be effort required to compile for DirectX. But maybe it will mean much more efficient code in general considering the restrictions on the console.

 

bobcat is to compete with atoms, and jaguar is the sucessor in this might struggle. its simple in that area they trounce atom, they really do, they are that good. However when you pair bobcat with a 2nd gen ulv from intel, they get smashed as well. Lets hope that whatever they do to make the 8 core atom smasher, they make it enough so that it wont bottleneck the cpu

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4218/amds-brazo-e350-msi-x370-sony-vaio-yb/4

some results from the e350

 

OK so even if Sony have plonked an underpowered processor in there in comparison to the GPU. Does it matter? Does it REALLY matter? I mean, us PC folk will still be chillin' with our Intels and whatnot. Consoles can't match PCs, that's a fact of life. Never will change. If devs can muster Uncharted and The Last of Us levels of graphics from the Cell processor, which isn't really true multi-core, then I don't see anything to worry about whatsoever with this PS4!

Y'all being too pessimistic, it likely won't matter that much when the games start flowing in

 

Why not just get a desktop? Really. a 2k laptop will be good now. But 3+ years from now it will be a dinosaur. A 2k desktop will still be able to beast most games 3 years from now though. Unless your going to be on the go constantly, a 2k laptop really isn't worth it, and it doesn't seem like your going to always be moving if your looking at getting a console.

 

I don't quite agree with that. GTX 680m, i7-3740QM combo can be had for about $1800 and it performs similarly to my desktop GTX 670 with i5-3570k and with mobo, case, ram, hdd, psu, misc cables, thermal paste, etc that would cost about $1300 without monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. Of course desktop has a more certain upgrade path, but with these higher end laptops have some upgrade path as well. But your point is well taken.

And here's some e-350 vs e-450 vs i3-2367m tests I did as well: http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...9-amd-e-350-e-450-intel-i3-2367-compared.html

i3-2367m with single channel RAM stomped the E-450 in CPU and GPU performance.


They should have called Jaguar, "Hadron" instead as the Atom smasher lol.

 

thats a good one!

The problem here is this, there are some servers that use and will use those underpowered cores, so in the end they can be enough in large quantities do the job, my hope is that 8 cores are enough for that task.

another thing people forget is that sony cant launch another console costing 600 bucks, and they dont have enough financial health (or mental disability) to incur the same strategy thtat they did with the ps3, that was take the loss in selling the console and win money from the developers. So yes they have to compromise on some parts, we have to wait and see if all that matters in the end.

 

Although desktops are decidedly less portable. My desktop is almost as big as my actual desk.

 

Ok, within about 20% of the desktop... and depends on what you consider a desktop and portable as far as size:

 

I think you're missing some pieces. Add a monitor, keyboard and mouse and take that shot again.

 

lol

iq is dropping madly...must be hitting kangaroo levels by now

 

...

 

hockeymass said his was as big as his desk, I just showed an alternative.

I used to take a Shuttle in a duffel bag with keyboard, mouse, and 17" LCD with me before I started gaming on laptops more regularly, which I didn't do so much until 2007/2008. It was ok for the occasional LAN meet, and gave me full power. But then laptops didn't have close to desktop performance.

 

What does this even mean? You're the guy who posts anything that pops into his head and thinks that the Xbox 360 has some dark magic inside of it that allows it to run new games on 7 year old hardware.

 

lol.. you have a good point there ,
But on the topic matter does it really matter to us what the PS4 is capable of ? it really comes down to a matter of preference i'll end up buying one for exsclusives etc as i did with my PS3 and 360

 

It only matters insofar as people like 32993 thinking that consoles actually perform better than PCs, which is demonstrably false.

 

whatever 10char

 

And that means ? Or are you simply admitting that you really are just an inane troll ?

 

I want to purchase a laptop recently, the question is also useful to me

 

Ok i'll post.

Now i will start off with i think the A10's are nice...For the graphics the processing power i laugh at. Never the less i am impressed but lets face it they are not going top play any demanding games maxed out at 1080. But the role they fill they fill very well.

Now this is made by AMD and we all know how AMD hyped up bulldozer that it was the i7 killer. The end all of CPU's. It was so fast they had to down clock it to keep it from putting a rip in space and time. And when i put the one i got in a mobo and used it for the first time i was like wow this is a turd i wan my i7 940 back now. Then we all know how Sony is. These two combined i don't see the PS4 living upto the hype. Im really doubting the graphics power that they are calming. Will it be fast and play games yeah but will it be as fast as they say? Nope im calling it now. Sony and MS have proved that they cant make a heatsink worth of anything that's going to kill out massive heat. So if they do slap a low power cpu with a gpu like they say and its on the same die i can see heat issue and really bad ones. Then AMD said they will release for desktops a "Slower" version of it. I dont get that why? Anyone who buys a APU is not going to buy a GPU they are buying the APU because it is cheap and you can play some games with it. A A18 5800k is $130. So if they can pack that much power in a APU why not? People would not have a issue paying $300 for that cpu. And unless the PS4 is going to be a $600 system and sell for $400 like people say that price will fit it pretty good. I just think that the desktopp version will come out before the PS4 and it will be a slow turd compared to what they say and they just said its going to be slower "Use DDR3 and not DDR5 so it is "Slower"" So that when people say hey this is only like 150% faster then trinity where is my super chip. It wont kill the PS4 sales before they even start. And they made the fact it was going to be made slower pretty clear like Sony was telling them they need to push that. Its the truth that DDR3 ram is going to slow it down a good amount but its not going to make a HD 7850 run like a HD 7660g.

So i think not only a GTX 680m will compete but it will give that gpu in the PS4 a nice kick in the face. I seen the games they showed for the PS4. They look good if you dont mind the jaggies. I cant stand them so right there you know they bumped up some settings with no AA or multisampling because it was just to much. I mean if they demo something the software is set up for that and to look the best. So you mean to tell me it can handle the AA and what not but they just did not turn it on? Counsel gamers are all OMG its so amazing looking. Because they love the jaggies when i looked at it i was saying to my self wow that's a crappy looking game lets pray to god we can get SweetFX on the PS4 lol.



Side not to the price for $400. I don't see that happening. And as a little funny when i forgot to let go of the shift key typing it would put PS$. Hmmmm the $ maybe that's the universe saying to us the PS4 will top the price of the PS3 at launch, And they cant sell it for to much of a loss. That margin is already eaten up by the PSP Vita.

 

Nothing wrong with the 680M. It should last a couple-few years.

 

why dont you get an alienware? you can play the ps4 through the HDMi in on your laptop



you compare and contrast easily between games then