How does a 7970m compare to...xbox and ps3?

i mean look how old ps3 and 360 is...the graphics on those are really good, i mean even games like skyrim look good,

how does 79070m compare to those system? it's not like consoles recieve new graphic cards..

 

If you have a 1080p screen you will notice that in the pc the game will look MUCH better (seems impossible when you play in ps3 but I can assure to you that is actually a way to make the marvelous graphics in skyrim even better )

 

much higher framerates on the 7970m and higher graphic settings in games. Example, crysis 2, dx11, high resolution pack, etc. A 7970m is many times more powerful than the gpu in the consoles

 

99% of PS3 and Xbox360 games are limited to 1280x720 resolution (or lower), with no AF, no AA or 2xAA, low res textures, low quality shadows, etc.

Games look much better on PC at 1920x1080 resolution with AF, AA, high res textures, etc. There are a lot of mobile graphics cards much weaker than the 7970m that can run most games at 1080p. The 7970m can run the most demanding games with faster frame rates.

 

is battlefield3 ,metro 3033 still most demanding? also will 7970m this max out future games?

 

Crysis 2 is also, and the 7970m should max all games for the next 2 years about , can't really say

 

How do apples compare to oranges?

 

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking what is more powerful? My smartphone or my xbox; and the answer is still not your xbox.

Current gen consoles are dinosaurs in the tech world, but horrible TV's and blind people have allowed them to live longer than normal lives.

 

I reckon consoles are far better than pc for gaming in terms of online play and exclusive titles like GT5. No pc game will be as good as gt5 or even gt4 as a whole racing game package.

 

LOL you can't compare a console to a pc because performance wise the pc will always win. But console-games have always a good port or are programmed for them so that's mainly a reason why they the graphics aren't that worse.

 

The graphics are far worse then the top end machines but there quite a few games that run well on like the 9600m gt like fifa or pes or driver san francisco or hot pursuit or batman aa etc because they play on consoles. Of course top end pc's can crank up the aa and af as well as put all the settings up and play at 1080p vs consoles 720p and 60fps vs consoles 30 fps, funnily enough gt5 runs at 60fps.

 

You can compare technical specs about GPUs in consoles vs pcs, but you cant about CPU, neither about the whole architecture the consoles uses compared to standard pc architecture.

Althought the main layout is the same - eg. Cpu+ram+gpu - theres alot of other things involved in a console than a pc. Those things needs to be considered if you want to make a proper comparison.

PS3 Cell is a 3 core cpu, but also its sports different SPEs, which are tasked by how the programmer use them for different things.

Speaking of PS3 those SPE's can be programmed to assist the Cell and the GPU into creating/using visual effects, physics calculations etc etc.

Some known games such Uncharted and GT5 use those SPE's to ease the work on the gpu with some visual effects that could otherwise impossible to manage giving PS3 gpu limited bandwidth. HDR, Bloom, AA, Real Time Shadowing etc etc can be all managed thru them.

More infos on the architecture can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

As the gpu itself, PS3 RSX is made by Nvidia and the actual "power" of the gpu alone should be comparable to the old desktop GeForce 7300-7600 family. If you take the gpu alone then the comparison is quite obvious: even the old 8800GT kicks the gpu quite badly. But its a mixture of different things that makes games look that better, or even impossible to replicate even on high end pc.

Since PC uses standard X86 layout (as described above) we cant have those titles easily ported, specially if those mentioned need the SPE's (or are programmed to use them extensively) to render/use some specific features.

PS3 needs to have the game properly coded for 1080p otherwise it will run at 720p, as the scaler is totally software.
For the Xbox360, theres an hardware scaler called ANA (or HANA) that can upscale any game to 1080p based on dashboard preferences. That eases both CPU and GPU work since the scaling is managed by the hardware itself.

Hope it helps.

 

The graphics are worse but it's not like it would be that much worse. It's just if you would play games on medium and a lower resolution. Not very pretty but ok. And that's also because the Xbox 360 and PS3 are old now. You should compare the graphics between a high end PC from the time the consoles were released. And of course you should also compare the price of a high-end PC and a new console. That's one of the reason why consoles have such a huge success.

 

In every measurable way the pc is better than a console, it can do everything the same and better. The only drawback is price.

 

And another drawback would be shoddy console ports.
edit : and having access to PC exclusives but not having access to console exclusives.

 

Consoles are ancient; anything more than 4 years old in the tech world is considered ancient.

You really can't compare a top end brand new 2012 $1500-2000 laptop with a $300 console from 7 years ago.

Of course it is at least 5-10 times more powerful; it's Moores law in action.

The general consensus is that a PS3 or Xbox 360 runs games at about Medium settings 720p; whereas 1080p Ultra Settings with Anti Aliasing and Vsync Etc. makes the game look at least 10 times better in my opinion.

When I play Xbox 360 at my friends' houses I want to cry because I feel like im playing a Nintendo 64 compared to a high end computer which I'm accustomed to.

 

kingpinzero the ps3 is based on the 7800 and the cell cpu I believe was 1 core and 8 spe.

a 3.2 GHz Cell with 8 SPEs delivering a performance equal to 100 GFLOPS on an average double precision Linpack 4096x4096 matrix.

Also the rsx: 550 MHz on 90 nm process (shrunk to 65 nm in 2008[4] and to 40 nm in 2010[5])
Based on NV47 Chip previously based on the 7800 but with cut down features like lower memory bandwidth and only as many ROPs as the lower end 7600. (Nvidia GeForce 7800 Architecture)

300+ million transistors

So I am about right it has slightly worse performance then my 9600m gt and similar transistor count at 300m+ mine is 314m.

The reason why xbox 360 have games that look better is it has unified shader. If consoles gpu was based on a 65nm nvidia 8800 gt then most games would look great but unfortunately it was based on a 256mb 7800. I know the 8800 65nm came a year later but I reckon it would have been worth waiting for.

 

720p is 1280x720 pixels - a lot of console games are running at 1024x600 now, to compensate somewhat for the fact that games are growing in complexity in terms of graphical effects but the hardware isn't changing.

There's not much more room for consoles to bottom out on resolution, so at some point soon new games are going to require new consoles. Modern PC's can run games at 3-4x that resolution, with higher frame rates, and additional graphical effects, and with more detail in textures and objects.

 

Xbox and PS3 have the same total of system + graphics memory (512mb).

My system has 10Gb.

 

RSX = 24 shaders, 8 vertex shaders, 256mb 128bit 700mhz GDDR3 (22.4GB/sec).
7970M = 1280 shaders (combined), 2048mb 256bit 1200mhz GDDR5 (153.6GB/sec)

If you want a direct comparison.

 

The new Wii is arriving in a few months, but the hardware in it is laughable. The graphics looks barely better than the ps3 or even the Xbox360. But the advantage of that is it will be rediculously cheap like the previous gen. The Xbox 720 is coming out next year and is rumored to have blue Ray and be eight times as powerful as the current Xbox. The new PlayStation is expected to either drop in late 2013 or early-mid 2014. To make up for the wait, Sony is going to have ps games built on a new engine that looks very good.

 

If you have anything faster then 8800 then you already have the next xbox/PS3. The Xbox and PS3 cant support the AA AF required to make games look good at 1080p. On a very small screen its not as noticable. Most TVs being sold these days are 55" or larger and the jaggies look bad, just look at forza 4 on the 360 and GT5, both of these games look like garbage on a larger screen. I have 120" epson 1080p projector and I dont even play games on it because most of them look really crappy. PC is OK if you max out AA and AF but jaggies look stupid on consoles. I hope the next generation of consoles actually use AA and AF.

 

The fact that Battlefield 3 even runs on consoles shows that it is like comparing apples to coins. The PS3 GPU is eclipsed by the 7970M, yet still runs the game at what most would say is medium settings of the PC version at a 720p resolution. It is all about optimization; if developers started to optimize around your specific computer you would see games with Hollywood level CGI effects and physics run well.

The 7800GT can be compared to a 8600GT, and the HD 7970M to an HD 7850.
http://www.hwcompare.com/12169/geforce-8600-gt-256mb-ddr2-vs-radeon-hd-7850/

 

7970m is a 7870 underclocked with overclocks its faster

 

Battlefield 3 actually runs at sub 720p, the settings are the equivalent of LOW or LOWEST for the PC.

So compared to a PC running 1080p at 60fps you are running less than 1/8th the number of pixels a second (less than a quarter of the resolution, half the frame rate).

 

From a hardware point of view, my own laptop in the signature (which I got on November 1st 2008) is better than consoles still in use (as is my gpu).
Ideally, I should be able to near max out any console game on my 1280x800 resolution, however, this is not the case - why?
Because numerous console ports are horribly optimized and can end up running like garbage on even the most powerful PC hardware.

That said, I don't really play games too much, and of those I do play are in a completely different ballpark (were made some time ago) than the 'trendy' ones (lol - I find most games out in the market brainless and mind-numbing which is exactly why I don't bother with them).

The 7970m is WAY faster (light years ahead) than anything the consoles currently have or probably will have (to my recollection, the new generation of consoles that will come out have been stated more or less to feature gpu's of AMD's 6xxx generation - not sure if they would be mid-range or not though).

To that end, it would be interesting if consoles decided to feature the 'best' of what is currently offered and then undergo an upgrade cycle in say 4 years time.

A lot of laptop users don't buy new laptops for roughly 3 or 4 years at least - heck I still find my laptop from 2008 (with minor upgrades) to be very nice and adequate (though since I also work in 3d, the cpu leaves room for improvement).

Having said that... I really don't see the point in all these different interfaces when it comes to gpu's and cpu's on laptops.
The manufacturers could easily make one standardized socket that future cards could use for some time to come at least until newest type of interface is required to meet the bandwidth needs (much like the transition from AGP to PCI).
But... like this, people are effectively limited in what they can get because laptop manufacturers would rather want people to go out and buy new stuff instead of upgrading most of the time.

Such a wasteful practice.

 

PCI express is the main I/O being used now.

Graphics cards have not changed slot for several years now.

CPUs need their own socket due to interfacing to extra things such as the memory and display.

 

I know that PCI express is the main interface being used now, I was predominantly referring to laptop manufacturers making gpu's having different MXM slot configurations (at least laptops that come with such slots) across ranges of different gpu's (low end, mid-end and high-end having a different MXM interface- some manufacturers even inverting the said interface).

As for CPU's, oh I know they need their own sockets, but that wasn't what I meant.
I meant that socket changes with revised cpu's are not justified because they could be made to be backward compatible. The whole i series from Intel (since its inception all the way to IB) could have used a standard socket instead of say changing them from one generation to the next (whereas the latest example includes revision of SB - IB not being backwards compatible - the 'excuses' used are lame if anything - 'different pin configuration' etc. - all of which could have been modified to accommodate the standard interface until such a time comes when the cpu has exceeded the socket capabilities - which usually happens only if big changes are introduced such as going from 1 core to multiple core chips, or changing the base material from say silicon to diamond).

 

Well the slot and heatsink mounts are the same for mxm a and b, it's a question of space. As for the cpu, its due to a lack of competition.

 

No... its just a business strategy for the most part coupled with planned obsolescence.
It keeps the market going mostly.
AMD employed a less wasteful practice than Intel in terms of socket change probably because of their lower financial footing... other than that, from a pure technological point of view... the current way of doing things is extremely technically inefficient and wasteful (but they don't of course care about that).

 

Intel get away with planned obsolesence due to lack of competition, simple as.

 

Agreed to a point... although, even with competition, we've seen frequent changes of sockets for new cpu's.
But planned obsolescence and regular buying of various equipment that get 'outdated' (or break down) in a specific (short) time-frame (usually after the warranty expires) forces people to buy new things on a regular basis - this is the very basis of the economic model, because if they made/designed a product that lasts decades, is extremely efficient and is a lot more powerful/faster from the get go and can be upgraded (instead of giving revisions of the same product or same basis of tech ever 12 months), people wouldn't be inclined to buy new things frequently (to this end they also make numerous other cpu's and eqipment with various speeds/features which is just wasteful -although it works in the current economic model).

 

biggest reason to upgrade is power efficiency...i refuse to run older computers because its wasteful. My G51j with a 920xm is almost out the door in my eyes because the newer stuff uses so much less power. anything above 45nm should be recycled

EDIT: especially with desktops. an old 45nm cpu uses i bet twice the power as a new 22nm so your operating costs for electricity would out weight the benefit of keeping it running.

130*24*365=1,138,800W in year
65*24*365=569,400W in year

1,138.8kWx$.13=$148.004
569,400kWx$.13=$74.022

$148.004-$74.022=$73.982 per year savings

Honestly i think 3-4 year old tech uses more then twice the power but i am not sure...too last to go and calculate it...you get the picture

 

Time it's off, actual savings are less.

 

i always have my stuff on 24/7 and fold with it....even not folding it still stays on.....especially if i owned a desktop.

 

Ok so if you spend $700 on a machine to upgrade, you would have to wait 10 years to get your money back.

Thats assuming its twice as efficient (it wont be, more like 10-20%).

 

if we are counting desktops not really...that was based off a 130W cpu....desktops use from 400-1500W so a highend desktop that use 1kW would use
1kW*24*365=8,760kW

8,760kWx$.13=$1,138.8 in a single year


again that is like a $2,000 desktop that would use that much juice. Two years of electricity would match a new 2k desktop. Why upgrading every 2-3 years is a good thing if you run it 24/7 and or fold. plus if you upgrade every 2-3 years the only things that really need upgrading are the graphics cards, motherboard, and CPU. so the 2k desktop has probably $500-1000 of transferable parts that use little electricity.


a highend notebook uses 240W roughly so

240Wx24x365=2,102,400W

2,102.400kWx$.13=$273.312

so yes a laptop is more efficient in retrospect to upgrading frequency. This is also largely due to laptops cost more per performance/dollar

also if your area costs more then 13 cents a kWh then everything changes. The US has electricity from 9-25cents per kWh if i remember. The average is like 13 maybe higher now. IL is around 13 cents give or take depending on usage. Not sure if more or less use gets better bang for your buck. Com ed is kinda shady in pricing.

 

I used the original xbox extensivley, then the 360 and PS3. I've also used a gaming laptop for a few years and currently have an alienware with the 7970m. As a rough guide, improvement between the 7970m and the 360 and PS3 is comparable to the improvement from the xbox and ps2 to the 360 and ps3. There are rumours that the new generation consoles will both be using AMD 7000 series GPU's of comparative strength. The GPU's mentioned are not as powerful as the 7970m, but with the optimisation developers gain from using fixed hardware and architecture the end results might be similar to what the 7970m outputs. New console owners are in for a treat. The visuals -(1080p vs 600 to 720p on consoles), high frame rates (60fps vs 30 fps), and advanced lighting effects are pretty stunning compared to current console games, to say nothing of the more powerful game engines that will be available by new generation CPU's.

 

You are crazy if you run a 1KW class machine (high end overclocked CPU + 3 graphics cards) running folding 24/7 on the CPU and graphics cards.

 

skyirm looks awesome on 7970m

 

Developer's can squeeze a lot out of console hardware as the hardware is fixed. The PC platform is not fixed so there are a lot of different software layers to go through (OS, drivers...). This is one of the reasons games can perform surprisingly when comparing hardware. The level of optimization that can be done on a console is just not possible on a modern PC.

 

some call them crazy.. I call them rich

 

"How does a 7970m compare to...xbox and ps3?"

Easy, it doesn't

 

Pure performance wise I'd say the 7970M is at least 10x as powerful as the GPUs in the 360 and PS3.