Can a 680M compete with the PS4?

Apparently, if it is all about bandwidth, then a 280m GTX with roughly 60GB bandwidth should totally crush the 4870m with around 35GB bandwidth. Yet the performance advantage--if any--always went to the ATi card.

More marketed hype and presentation of numbers in very selective ways to create an impression that'll hardly hold water.

 

Don't sweat it Kade, x32993x has told me how my M18x will get spanked by next gen consoles too lol.

 

If you can point out ONE bit of history or logic that supports this statement, I will be stunned. We all know you can't, though, because you're a pitiful troll.

Saying something is the most powerful APU ever made is like saying that the Smart Fortwo is the most powerful Smart car ever made. It doesn't mean anything with regards to comparisons with high end hardware, because high end systems don't use APUs. Also, the graphics on the PS3 are a lot less impressive when you consider that virtually all recent releases are capped at 30 FPS and a resolution roughly half that of most gaming PCs.

 

Or it might be that you have no life. Ever thought about that? lol

 

Not entirely a 7970M but not far from it either. PS4 GPU have 1.9 Teraflops. 7970M have 2.2 Teraflops. That is computational performance though but since both are AMD it should translate roughly the performance of the GPU core. But yeah I`m with you, on a console this performance will be much greater than what we can get with 7970M and 680M because its a console, where everything is optimized for that exact hardware. That was my point with my previous post, just look at the PS3 hardware and what they still managed to squeeze out of it. The recent week several gaming studios have embraced Sony`s choice to include 8GB GDDR5 because they now get to include more of the graphical stuff they had to ditch with the PS3 and the 256MB GDDR5 RAM.

Here is a recent article from a game developer. He says "most pcs". Midrange GPUs it will beat for sure with the right optimizations. Included 680M I think. I could be wrong but thats what I see. I hope to see my 680M beaten though, since I`m getting a PS4 when its released. I`m also thinking about building a desktop with GTX Titan.

gamingbolt.com/ps4-will-will-out-power-most-pcs-for-years-to-come-avalanche-studios-cto

 

Most PCs...are not gaming PCs. The fact that he qualifies that by saying that he's glad that Sony went with 8GB of RAM is even more perplexing.

 

Sure they are. Gaming PCs are also included in that obviously. Not all though, which is why they say "most". The games can be optimized and optimized but it still won`t beat the high end Keplers or GCNs. And 680M isn`t a high end GPU compared to desktops Keplers. Its midrange.

But whatever, it is what it is. I could be wrong like I said. PS4 is a huge jump from PS3. That is all that matters

 

You're right, the 680m is comparable to midrange desktop cards, but it can easily be overclocked up to 660ti or 670 levels, making it significantly more powerful than the hardware in the ps4. I'm aware of console optimization, but for the next couple years (the likely lifespan of a 680m before getting replaced) it should offer comparable performance to next gen systems. The fact that next gen consoles are using x86 arch means that ports to pc should improve as well, meaning pc users should benefit from improved optimization as well. Just my opinion at least. I don't think the ps4 is going offer a better gaming experience than current pc hardware for a few years, and by that time pc users will all have upgraded to better hardware, giving them the obvious performance advantage again.

 

It is a huge jump, but that doesn't answer the question posed by the thread.

 

people also need to remember that the ps4 will likely be locked to 30fps at 1080p...and if ps3 is anything to go buy, consoles often miss out on a few eye candy options compared to pc to have playable fps. If you think about it, the 680m can play almost every game on the market at the moment at least at 30fps with all settings set to max and AA enabled.

 

This tweet from John Carmack has been making the rounds:

People tend to take the words from his mouth as pure gospel.

 

John Carmack hasn't been relevant in a decade. Ridiculous.

 

Mm. It's still amazing how people who are supposed to be well-informed, and who actually have been doing coding for a living, for a long time - still keep believing that ugly C-optimisations will forever cut the running time of an algorithm in half as a rule.

Still see it now at Uni. A guy makes a piece of code that arguably is both pretty and valiant, and it runs fast. It also runs faster than the original piece of code, which was slightly less pretty and valiant. But it never tried to abstract the code away into more easily created separate parts, before those individual parts would possibly be optimised to run in concert more properly later.

Had one example. Guy is a million times smarter than me, he can code stuff as easily as I write b*****it down on a piece of paper. But he just couldn't see that waiting for a specific instruction, and halting the program execution every single time that specific routine should complete - was less efficient in terms of user-response than designing the code to run that routine only during free cycles, while using "approximated data" that in practice never would be more out of date than the original routine.

Just didn't compute. He had to have that update from a "fresh" run, because that's just the way it had always been done. Demoed it and proved the indirect approach had on average better execution times, as well as maintained user-response consistently 100%. But he didn't get that, and just said that hardware should be faster and everything would work, etc.

That's the kind of thing you see in the industry now. We keep thinking that programmers and game-developers are the kind of people who sit at the cutting edge and enjoy inventing things on the absolutely latest hardware. But the ones who actually get paid money don't do that.

 

I have just lost any and all respect for that man. Sorry, he's living in the 90's. Mr. Carmack... RIP.

Although I'll still probably buy Doom 4... lol. (wow has it really been almost 9 years since Doom 3 was released? WTH?)

 

Come on, why all this hate for Carmack? Maybe his most recent efforts haven't exactly hit it out of the ballpark, but are people forgetting that he made PC gaming and graphics what it is today? And I just love the armchair experts on here that act like they know more than him. You guys couldn't bow down low enough to kiss his feet.

 

Oh, please. I'm, for example, so malleable when it comes to work that I can kiss people's feet - after bending over backwards. If I didn't know how to do that, I'd literally be starving.

Seriously, though. Do you think it's a coincidence that conventions are kept? Not because users want it, but because developers resist it? People know they have to learn new things extremely fast if they were to keep up. So you don't do that. What you do is you create and prototype a solution you've already made. And then you convince your customer that they want that product.

Rinse and repeat. And you end up with conventions that are so strong that they just can't be changed. And anyone who challenges that are typically insane, or they want to destroy the business and cost people their jobs, etc. If I had, say.. 15 dollars every time I heard a variation on this phrase: "But the market isn't ready for xxx, so it doesn't matter how good the solution is", I would never have to work again.

 

How did he make PC gaming and graphics what it was today? What was the first 3D accelerated game? Descent 2 on Voodoo hardware. 3D shooters existed before he came on the scene. Heck there were 3D shooters on old game consoles when he was still in diapers. He had nothing to do with 3D graphics as they are today. He had one of the first successful 3D shooters on PC. But it was quickly surpassed by a large number of games to follow.

 

The quake 2 engine, and quake when that came as well, those were extremely well done, though. Making the transition between "2.5d" with slightly rotating sprites, and into more geometry based rendering - that too was id and their teams. The way they promoted 3d-cards at the beginning, and created specific solutions to utilize them in the engine as well - great work.

That Carmack is wrong as a reverse 6-string fiddle when it comes to current use of parallelisation in hardware, and where hardware needs to go to break any new ceilings - doesn't change what they did before.

...or that Psygnosis and Remedy+futurecrew did much more important work when it came to use of actual 3d contexts. But hey, who cares, it's not like the games-industry has awards for "most technically interesting graphics context and node-construction graph", is it.

 

Wow really? It's amazing how you undervalue the contributions of someone regarded as the father of FPS games and whose programming techniques and engines have paved the way for countless others. And name me one company besides id whose games have so firmly embedded themselves, for better and for worse, in pop culture. How quickly you forget...

It's like hating on George Lucas because he sold Star Wars to Disney or because you thought the prequel trilogy sucked. You still can't deny how Star Wars pretty much changed not just film but the entire world.

 

Name one company that has so firmly embedded themselves in popular culture? I could name many... Nintendo's, Valve's, Bungie's, Rockstar's, and even Infinity Ward's games are just as recognizable and represented in pop culture as Id's. Perhaps more so. The list goes on and on... Epic Games, Crytek, Core Design (and later Crystal Dynamics,) Naughty Dog, Capcom, Kojima Productions, Ubisoft's different studios, etc...

 

Like I said, Carmack hasn't been relevant in years. His most recent stuff, which he basically just lends his name to at this point, has been garbage. His most celebrated accomplishment was in 1993! You can say a lot about him, but I don't see why his thoughts on graphics and performance are more valid than anyone else's just because he created Doom.

 

Heh. Since there's talk about this guy now, I will say that I don't hate Carmack. I just think that he can be wrong, many times over. I also don't think that he's an untouchable legend because of something great from the 90s. He's already established himself as a bit of a mouthpiece for certain parties over the last decade and that's been baseless and off putting. Besides, I don't exactly take individuals--no matter how grand and great--for their word at gospel level. Argumentum ad verecundiam? No thanks. No man/being/myth is beyond critical reproach, especially Carmack.

 

I definitely don't hate him and I respect what he did for the the industry in its fledgling years, but it would be like resurrecting the Wright Brothers and having them pontificate on the current state of the aviation industry.

 

According to Sony PS4 specs - the GPU will have 1.84 TFLOPS of computing power (this is marginally more than a stock 7850 which has about 1.76 TFLOPS). So yes, the GPU is essentially a 7850 - however, they don't mention anything on ROPs, texture units, shader cores etc. But I assume it would more or less the same as the 7850.

The PS4 will also have 8GB of GDDR5 memory (which will be shared with the GPU). In answer to the thread question - YES, I think a 680M would be better than the PS4 GPU. Couple a 4GB DDR5 680M with a Core i7 3920XM with 32GB RAM + SSD and that should demolish a PS4.

One last thing to remember is PRICE OF GAMES! Sony can claim no price increases all they want, once PS4 games hit the shelves - AAA titles are going to cost anywhere between $60 - $70 each.

If you have a PC - most games on steam range between $40 - $60 (max). And steam usually have specials weeks prior to the game being launched.
Let's not forget their seasonal specials and steam sales - you can pick up good games dirt cheap.

A simple calculation:
If you buy 30 games for PS4 at an average of $65 each = 30 x 65 = $1950
and if you buy the same 30 games for PC at an average of $55 each = 30 x 55 = $1650

With the difference of $300, you could buy a Geforce GTX 660Ti for your PC

 

The price discrepancy on games is going to get even wider if Sony and Microsoft continue to wage war on behalf of the studios against used game sales.

 

As off-putting as some of his comments are, he is correct in this instance. Having a single hardware specification to develop for allows the code to be written in the best scenario possible -- for optimization and not adaptability. One issue with developing games for PCs is that at times, going with a generic method might be the only option because you have concerns such as different hardware (nVidia/AMD/Intel), the underlying operating system and its features that could interfere with the game (Firewall, Antivirus, Windows Update, etc.). Comparing a game console to a PC is like comparing a butter knife to a swiss army knife; one is built for a specific purpose, while the other is a multi-purpose/tasking device.

Even with gaming consoles having the advantage of 'fire up and go' gameplay without a potentially heavy upfront investment, they do have their limits like the PCs, but developers have found ways of working around them. One such method is taking advantage of the GPU's hardware scaling Just because you fire up the PS3/XBOX 360 and have it setup for 1080p on your big screen TV does not mean the game is running at that resolution 100% of the time. Gran Turismo 5 is known to shift between 1080p in menus/car galleries to 720p in actual racing. XBOX's big and bad FORZA 4 runs at 720p constantly with heavy post-AA. I implore those of you who think they are playing their favorite games at 1080p resolution like a PC can, do research and I guarantee that almost all, if not all, of your games may actually be running at 720p or not even at a standard HD resolution. The low PPI of a large screen TV and low level anti-aliasing processing does wonders.

As far as the OP question goes, the GTX 680M can certainly compete with the PS4's GPU. In its factory state, its raw performance can match or even slightly be better than the PS4.

 

He is correct, kind of, in a sense, but I'm not sure how much it actually matters. As far as resolution, a lot of newer games don't even run at 720p. Lots of them are around 600p or so.

 

You can apply many scenarios to this case, one good example would be writing apps or games for iOS or Android. I've done so for both platforms and I can certainly tell you the code of Android is much more bloated than iOS equivalent, just because you have to add additional images/textures for different resolutions, additional APIs for different GPUs, and even protocol APIs for specific SoCs. Just because you write the code in favor of compatibility over straight optimization, performance for a specific device is not expected to be 100%.

 

So funny to witness people so attached to their computers. You guys try too hard.

1 year from now our 680M and Ivy bridge processors will be crap compared to notebooks with Maxwell+Broadwell+ExpressSATA SSDs. Not to even mention the desktop that will be out in 1 year. Heck you could just look at the ones that are out now. They are in a total different league. We are little boys compared.

You guys think your little notebook with a 1080p 60Hz display, single SSD, downclocked midrange GPU, locked down CPU (TDP) is so good. Its decent hardware, but nothing more.

Our noteooks are OK, but its still a long way from the top hardware, so I`m not sure why everyone is so defensive about a notebook that maybe will be beaten by a new console that PS4 owners are "stuck with" for 5-8 years. Its just silly watching people getting so riled up about it.

It is what it is

I`m gonna build myself a desktop with Titan SLI or GTX 790 when Haswell is out. It is going to be a slient build, and I`m gonna pair it with 1600p 120Hz screen. It will eat all of our notebooks for dinner.

I`m still going for a notebook with GTX 780M and Haswell for LAN parties and traveling.

 

I actually agree with the above. I don't think that anyone's arguing the benefits of fixed hardware and the coding that follows. It's the claim of how much of a gain is yielded. Is he right in saying that it'll be twice as powerful? It's the bloated aspect of his claim, along with the certitude that warrants questions.

Also to keep in mind, this two-fold yield wasn't the case last generation, not even close, and while there was an advantage it wasn't the 100% increase that Carmack's claiming/predicting for these new consoles. So I guess the logic he employs is correct, but the actual efficacy--two fold performance of equal PC hardware--that he predicts seems categorically hyperbolic.

Dude, take it easy. Let's not get into psychoanalysing people here, because I think then we'll be truly out of our depths. I literally have seen my consoles--two of 'em--fail to match equal PC hardware last generation -- the bigger the TV, the worse the stuff looked. However, it was a great ride in terms of exclusives and cheap hardware. It is what it is, as you say, but now there's an impasse on who's seeing right. Perhaps you accept the idea that no one's being defensive. Is it defensive for someone to say that they don't see what you see? Do you honestly think that is reasonable perception?

 

So funny how people troll topics that they say don't matter. It's silly watching people troll.

He's acting just like that other x32993x guy or whatever. His points aren't backed up by a single shred of anything, so he stoops to insults.

 

One thing for sure, the PS4 will crush your pathetic little HP notebook. 6770M hahaha, probably just as weak as the PS3 GPU. :hi2:

 

The question in the topic title is moot. Two different platforms. Each will have exclusive games. Buy both a gaming PC and a ps4 and then just choose which cross platform titles you will buy for which system. If you can only afford one, choose wisely based on your gaming style. Pretty simple.

 

Don`t forget that their view is the correct one and that our is considered trolling because we have a different opinion
hockeymass gets personal and calls it trolling because he needs to defend notebooks. I mean come on, its just a toy.

 

Oh! Lol! Not doin' yourself any favours with that confession, bro. ; )

I'd probably go with the PS4 once the bit about used games is finalised since most of my exclusives of choice end up on the consoles and tend to be trouble free. From a price perspective, it wins and this time around, stuff will look good at 1080p on a large screen.

 

I don't game on my laptop. You guys are sad. x32993x, the reason you are a troll is because you have zero evidence to prove anything you've ever said and you are pointlessly antagonistic while at the same time being impossibly ignorant.

 

Hey guyz, I swear that I'm actually 28 and that x 32993x isn't my birthday! I'm super sereal guyz! I'm not 19! I'm way moar mature than u babiez!

 

Provide one single bit of anything to support the nonsense you've been posting. I'd be thrilled to see it. Do something instead of trolling and then crying when you get called a troll.

 

i think we should be glad that there is so much technology available to use as consumers and that we get all these choices. I will always have a mid to high end PC and a console. To me certain games are meant ot played on consoles with a controller and others are meant for PC. An example is, IMHO Racing and Sports games such as Fifa should be played on a console whereas something like Diablo or Starcraft belongs only on a PC. Having said that, the move to x86 architecture i think will mean console exclusives might start making PC appearnaces...see how we go i guess..

 

Also remember bulldozer how it was going to blow us away. And the PSP Vita how it was going to change our life's. Well knowing Sony and AMD im not holding out for much with the PS4 . So far its all talk and the games i seen look like utter crap with the jaggies. Hell my new HTC one looks better and it running stuff at 1080. E3 they better show off graphics that look great and i better not see 1 jaggy or i will claim victory in the ps4 being a over hyped slow pos.

 

It has an AMD APU. Utter garbage. Don't expect much! The x86 coding is the only good thing about the new consoles. We might actually get some good ports in the future.

 

While the PS4 will crush his pathetic little HP Notebook (duh), the 6770m is quite a bit more powerful than the old 7900GT design in the PS3. Providing the games are optimized, I'm sure his notebook runs multiplatform games way better than the PS3 does.

 

And when I ditch my HP for a MacBook Air, then PS4 will REALLY crush it! But it doesn't matter because my desktop will eat PS4 for breakfast.

 

It has no bearing on whether it is a console or a PC. The actual device is meaningless. The preference lies in the controller type. You can easily hook up your PC remotely to your living room and use it however you like, with any type of input you like etc.

In the end, consoles are accesible gaming machines with less hassle, but limited options.

I like PS4 btw. I think it's very well designed. I am a hardware enthusiast and I was happy to see the specs of it, and more importantly how it will all traduce to better user experience. I will buy it and since I have a 150Mb connection, I can make full use of most of its features.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7PKpGyjqBw
Guy is running on a 7800GT (same as PS3s)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPIuTOm6flc
Same guy running Skyrim at 1280x1024, a bit higher than PS3s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abGW1bk1nmM
A bundle of videos of people running a 7800GT with fraps for recording.

Without fraps, frame rates should pretty much be the same. To be honest, I'm taking what everyone says with a grain of salt. Until I have the console myself, I'll reserve judgement. Businesses and their partners will lie in order to make the product look good. The PS3 was supposed to have native 1080p for all games and 2 HDMI ports. What we got were sub HD games at 30 frames. The cell was supposed to be revolutionary and instead multiplatform games got an inferior port in comparison. I'm not knocking the console as I've had every playstation to date aside from vita but I'm keeping my "I'll believe it when I see it" thing going on here.

 

Impossible, according to several posters in this thread, the PS3 has magic powers.

 

It does. And a fanboy told me the PS4 will play crysis 3 at ultra hd 4k in 3D on 2 screens at 900fps. He said the reason why all the vids of gamplay had jaggies and looked like crap was because sony dont want ms to know that the ps4 is really the worlds smallest and fastest supercomputer and if they run it at 100% its so fast that it can tear a hole in space and time so the UN. has limited the power of the PS4 to 65.2%

 

Lol'd so much.

 

Exactly! Einstein's theory of relativity has NOTHING on this thing. This is pure E=PS4!

 

I think the actual equation would be "E=γPS4," because Einstein's theory of relativity is "E=γmc^2." The implication is that the PS4 moves so quickly that γ approaches infinity, so the energy of the PS4 approaches infinity.

Sorry, I had to spoil the joke.