How will "Next Gen" games affect PC players?

I'm skeptical it will include a 7970m. That article doesn't talk about sources leaking that information, instead they say 'We've previously suggested that AMD's mobile "Pitcairn" design - the Radeon 7970M - could be a strong basis." Doesn't sound like any kind of insider knowledge, just a random suggestion or wishful thinking by the author of the article.

 

They matched the TFLOPS rumors that was leaked few days ago with 7970M I think. Yeah I don`t know. Would be awesome though.
Real 1080p with stunning visuals. Imagine that hardware with x86 architecture. It would mean that game developers could make games to PC and PS4 unhindered by anything. Sounds a bit too god to be true yes.

 

Just seems like it would be too expensive. I haven't owned any consoles since the 1980s, so I don't have much experience with them, but when the PS3 and Xbox360 launched, did they have flagship graphics cards like this at launch time, or were they using weaker, inexpensive cards?

Previous PS4 rumors suggested it would use something along the lines of a 7670m in hybrid crossfire with the AMD processor's integrated graphics.

 

The PS3's gpu is similar to the 7800 gtx, but with reduced memory bandwidth, so it was very powerful for its time. Not sure about the 360's gpu, but it was similarly high-end at the time.

The problem was Sony was charging $600 for the ps3 at launch, and still lost hundreds on each unit sold. Pretty much every report I've read on next-gen consoles says they will be much cheaper this time around, and I can't see Sony losing money on another console, especially in its current financial situation.

I could be wrong though; they could be releasing beastly, expensive consoles once again, but it would mean that the media was very, very wrong in their predictions based on "industry insiders."

My guess based on everything I've read so far is that the ps4 and xbox "720" will be comparable to current mid-range gaming computers. However, their fixed architecture means that they will outlast comparable computers' relevancy by many years, just like the ps3 and 360 did.

 

The Next Gen games will be bottlenecked by next gen console's limitations... and next game developers will forget that PC gamers existed and not bother giving them any bonus expansions.

 

They always take losses on the hardware early in the life cycle. I don't see that changing unless they plan on charging north of $700-800 out of the gate.

 

I guess i am getting older and way less games seems appealing to me. Getting the "i ve done exactly the same befor" feeling and loosing interest. So i just hope ne games bring something new. I am tempted to try kinnect now and then hoping for games that actually feel ifferent in some way

 

The RSX (PS3's GPU) didn't at all contribute to the console's extreme expense. The $499/$599 were solely due to Sony's decision to include the highly exotic Cell processor, and the early adoption of Blu-ray. With a relatively "off the shelf" IBM processor and a DVD9 drive, It would've been $299/$399, tops.

Sony is not doing that anymore. They plan to be near the break even or very minor loss point on day one. Look at the Playstation Vita; it has cutting edge technology, and they are not taking losses on the hardware. That is their new philosophy.

 

I'm just going to wait and see with all these rumors flying around. Didn't someone post on here an online article from the U.K. saying that one of the two "will have a cpu more powerful than any gaming computer." There is going to a jump of performance from gaming console to console, no argument there.
But when you look at the asking price of high end GPUs, they are so close to the cost of the console them selfs. ( Unless there is a large markup on PC GPUs that I don't know about).

At the PC perspective, we won't see anything mind blowing in the hardware compartment, at least I believe that.

Sent from my SGH-T999

 

Microsoft and Sony will undoubtedly get massive discounts when these things are bought in bulk.

 

Hopefully, Valve will accomplish the same with the Steambox.

 

No doubt, but still... I can't see them offering a quad core processor and a 7970-level gpu in a $400 console. It doesn't really add up imo. Plus that goes against all the media predictions and so-called tips from "insiders" within M$ and Sony.

 

Orbis unmasked: what to expect from the next-gen PlayStation : Games

 

I don't see why people think the GPU won't be as powerful as a 7970m. in 2005 the 360 GPU was I believe the first GPU to use a unified architecture. It was, in power, similar to a ATI 1950XT which was a high-end desktop GPU upon LAUNCH. A 7970m equivalent would basically mean a console debuting at the end of 2013 would be equivalent to a midrange desktop card of 2012. Even if they use a midrange card, it will be so optimized that PC's running this card right now will struggle tremendously with games that will be ported to the PC. Remember, these new consoles are basically expected to run 1080p with DX11. I hope for the sake of ALL gaming that the consoles use a very powerful GPU as that only benefits PC gamers 2-6 years down the consoles lifecycle as the games will still be ported to the PC. We WANT to have high fidelity games years from now. However, to expect that notebook PC's of 2012 (7970/680m) to be playing console games of 2014 and beyond with no problem, may be ambitious thinking...

 

because its not cost effective and Microsoft/Sony can't sell their new consoles for more than $400 a pop. A mid-range desktop card last I check still costs around $200-300. Even in bulk, the discount is not worth it for both of them.

 

Think about it, if the 680m and 7970m won't be able to handle ports in 2014, then even low-end gpus will have to be more powerful than them by that time in order to play 2014's games. I don't see that happening. You think that the 835m/840m will score 6500+ in 3DMark11?

I don't expect the 680m and 7970m to be maxing out every one of 2014's games, but I do believe they'll be able to handle them without any problems.

 

I'm just going off previous experience. We shall see. In 2005, the best notebook I believe was the xps with the 6800. There is no way that gpu could handle unreal engine 3 games. Even the 7900mgtx in 2006 could handle the unreal engine3 games which was debuted 6 months or so after the 360 debut. The fact is that GPU's on desktops and especially notebooks have to be more powerful to run games that are console optimized. Crysis 2 and Crysis 1 on the 360 look pretty good. There is no way a 6800 mobile card or 7900mgtx could play those games with similar settings.

With maxwell coming out in 2014, which looks to be quite more powerful than Kepler...then we will have the performance to really play the console ports and future PC games without the need for upgrading. In the next year I imagine many people will be debating some significant upgrades to their rigs or buying new ones outright. Just my opinion.

 

I see your point, it's just hard for me to imagine that nearly every current gpu (The possible exceptions being the gtx 680 and 7970) will be completely obsolete in a year. I have no doubt that games will become more demanding (and that's a good thing imo) but it would have to be a pretty massive jump to make that happen. Anything could happen though, and I'm far from an expert on the subject

 

Actually I'd be very impressed if they'd put in an 8 or 12 core bulldozer,4gb ram and a 7870. That would be a quantum leap in performance compared to the current consoles and all those cpu cores would allow them to implement smarter A.I.s and realistic physics.

 

They normally go with a more powerful CPU than GPU, such as the PS3's Cell and its crappy RSX gpu.

I hope they don't gimp it's RAM this time.

 

Last I read the xbox would have 8gb while the ps3 would only have 4 gb, but at higher frequencies.

source: http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a452049/ps4-new-xbox-all-the-rumors-you-need-to-know-on-next-gen-hardware.html

 

Well I think its a real possibility imo.
7970M that we own have 20CUs. PS4 7970M will have 2 disabled, 18 CUs, and they run @ 800MHz instead of the real 7970M which runs @ 850MHz.
So what could be happening here is that the GPUs that didn`t make it to the 7970M bin is going inside the PS4. Which means lower price.

PS3 launch price was $599. 7970M cost $500 now. The PS4 version, who knows, $400? Take account that Sony will get huge discount because of the big orders. I think its certainly possible price wise if Sony goes for the expensive model again. But if its $400 like you said, there won`t be a 7970M there

 

The likely setup is this: AMD A10 APU which is junk. 4-8gb ram and a 7770. It's gonna be cheap garbage.

 

Mark my words, the Oculus Rift is going to change gaming forever.

Who wants to play a game when you can be IN a game.

 

assuming all you said are true, still Sony will never do another $599 fiasco.

That price alone costed them quite a lot this generation. As an user/gamer, we all want the best hardware possible in our next gen console but business-wise, they couldnt care less. And as soon as there is a fixed hardware specification, dev can do wonder and produce amazing games with breathtaking visual. It's not about how powerful the console is but the fact that the specs are universal.

say what you will but such a device is a niche, maybe a bit bigger than your usual niche but still it is one. Unless they pull some kind of magic and make it dirt cheap + easy to set up.

 

They're aiming for $300 for the consumer device and the SDK will mean plug and play with supporting games/engines.

Console support is also on the horizon.

Can't get much better than that - this will be bigger than a niche, even a big one.

 

I'm certain you will get one but the majority of people? Sorry nope. Not for $300 at least and yeah its an accessory not a gaming console by itself. Thus make it harder to sell.

 

I just don`t get why $600 is so much when PS3 lasted 6 years. I mean thats $100 per year.
People gladly pay $1500-2000 for a computer and doesn`t complain about that. Many even switch computers 3 times in a 6 year period

 

You cant compare them like that dude. A console is a different beast all together with a different mindset.
Orbis unmasked: what to expect from the next-gen PlayStation • Articles • Eurogamer.net

 

Based on what I heard before the Eurogamer article, they were considering mid-range AMD GPUs like the 7600 series. Hopefully they really do use something more akin to the 7900 series because that could really be put to good use in a special-purpose gaming machine. Or course, is Microsoft keeps cutting the OS overhead on newer versions of Windows like they are now that may no longer be an important factor.

as for the $600, it's not that much for adults with reasonable jobs but it's a hell of a lot of money for kids, teens and people with low-paying jobs.

 

Going for the big picture:

Consoles sort of launch being at a place PCs basically are in terms of graphics and PCs have been basically stuck in the same place in terms of graphics for a few years. This is partially because so many PC games are also designed around console versions, but it is also due to the fact that there isn't that much left to do. Some fair level of realism can be offered visually on tablets and phones. So next-gen consoles should manage 1080p, some form of AA and what should be "high" settings for lighting and textures for "today's games" and that level is basically where they'll stay graphically. PC places to grow are "photorealism", 4Kp, 3D, and multimonitor. Remember that PCs benefit from tech improvements faster, one of the most relevant being that the fabrications of chips are getting really small really quick.

Think about this: If both consoles are out by next year, they will be based on at least one year old tech in a year which Intel is moving to the 14nm process, both GPU makers should also be shrinking their fab process and DDR4 arrives.

So how does this affect PC players?

If you're sticking to a single monitor, you should love it. Design your next rig around a nice quad-core and a GPU that can handle multi-monitors and you should be looking at 5 years with a GPU change somewhere around the halfway point.

Laptops?

Near term: Well mobile CPUs are awesome.... well, Intel's anyway, AMD going to need to increase the core count. [...if only the A10-4600 was a Hex, the GX60 would be awesome for gaming] GPUs are good-great, both AMD and Nvidia are throwing hefty polygon pushers on the top end. Being based off performance/enthusiast desktops cards should mean the card in your single monitor 1080p laptop has a long life ahead of it.

Long term: It really depends on what resolution you choose. If you move to 4Kp, it's going to be different than 1080p of course. If you opt for the 1080p screen in a laptop 3 or 4 years from now and the GPU can to 4K ...that's going to last you a while.

 

You are on the right train of thought.

All current laptop GPUs are in for a rude awakening.

They cost $500 to us, because AMD has no conscience for the poor laptop gamers. But desktop 7870s are going for as low as $200, so imagine that they actually only cost AMD $100, or even less.

And then picture the scene when Sony comes along to order like 20 million in one go.

They just got really cheap per unit.

 

We'll see how it works out, but I'm hoping you turn out to be wrong about this.

Out of the 60 million Steam client installed base, only a tiny percentage of folks are gaming on machines with super high end graphics card. Many of us have no plans to suddenly go out and buy a new laptop solely because Sony brings a new console to market.

 

Don't underestimate the perversity of the Way of Things.

 

The 7970m is an underclocked desktop HD 7870. Currently the HD 7870 2GB runs as low as $220, but that is the RETAIL PRICE that figures in all the markup, marketing, distributing, other material pieces such as heatsink/fan, 2GB of DDR5 and the casing. When the console uses the chip, that is pretty much it and I doubt the chip itself costs more than $100, possibly less. The electronics on the board, the memory, the cooling ...it is all proprietary to the console.

The chip in the HD 7870 [aka 7970m] is probably something that could fit into the pricing structure of a next-gen console. You have to remember that economies of scale also plays a role. The PS3 sold ~70 million consoles, you have to think that AMD is looking to provide 50 million or more of these over the consoles lifetime.


As for the effect on laptop GPU owners, I've been thinking about this because my current laptop is having issues. I want to wait until 2014 to replace it, now I may need to buy this year and all I see as worth it as the potential candidates for hardware is a HD 8970m [desktop NON-OEM HD 8850/8870]. That could last ~3years with good settings on games, which is all I expect and look for from a gaming laptop. As for people's current mobile GPUs, yes ...they will eventually fall short, but I wouldn't fret the new console arrival on day 1 as there is always a bit of a learning curve and early games on a new consoles are usually also on the old console ...next-gen machines suffer the same effects of consolitis as PC in that time as the graphics often feel dates to the older hardware. There ends up being a grace period of about a year for older PCs.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion this upcoming transition is going to be quite interesting for PC gaming.

The Xbox360 launched in November 2005. It took five years for the installed base to reach 50 million, in December 2010. The PS3 did not reach an installed base of 50 million units until 2011.

How long do you think it will take for the next gen Xbox and PS4 to get to that level? It will take a minimum of three to four years, if they ever even reach that level. During this lengthy window of time, when old gen X360 and PS3 games are phased out, people who game on their laptops and desktops will be the largest market segment for AAA games.

As of December 2012, the Steam client already had an installed base of 55 million PC gamers and growing. This will dwarf the next gen console installed base for at least the next several years. Don't underestimate the greed of publishers and their focus on the largest markets, not to mention the benefit of eliminating all those costs related to retailer and wholesaler margin, replication, packaging, shipping, POS Displays, rebates, returns, Sony/MS licensing fees, etc.

If the installed base of next gen Xbox or PS4 is only 10-15 million within the first few years, there is no way you will see the blockbuster sales of 20 million units for the CODs and Skyrims of this world without catering to the PC digital download market as well.

Unless they are fanatical about the console exclusives like Halo, etc., hopefully more current gen console gamers will realize they can simply buy a mid-range laptop, which most people already need for work or school, instead of spending more money on a next gen console.

 

8 core bulldozer,8gb ram and a 7870 core would be an ideal setup while still maintaining a realistic price. Likely setup is: A10 apu,4gb ram,7770. In other words it'll be cheap garbage just like the current ones.....

 

I am not disagreeing with some of the views on increased system requirements. However, most of the information that is coming in puts the hardware down at mid-range/upper mid-range*. Also to keep in mind, this isn't all that great a deviation from the current generation since the Xbox 360's GPU--while revolutionary for its time--was also gimped in terms of bandwidth, but at the same time, both the PS3 and 360 had gaming-centric CPUs that worked in tandem with the GPU units. Corners can be cut and we have this generation and the previous generation of consoles that did undergo some downgrades with the final product.

The point that counts most, in my opinion, is what developers are able to do with the limitations of the hardware. It doesn't matter if these consoles won't have the highest grade parts in town; they'll still host content that'll require better PC hardware to operate at similar settings. Having that said, I think most high-end laptop and desktop hardware will survive the first couple of years depending on the settings at play. The current generation is basically 720p at the 30FPS mark. Now it'll probably be moving towards 1080p at a general 60 FPS, so that still shouldn't be outside the scope of some of the recent high-end mobile GPU offerings. Of course, exclusive console titles will always remain exclusive and depending on budget, a lot of great results will be achieved as has been seen on the Playstation 3, although the limitations can be observed in the details.

* And by mid-range, I speak in the context of desktop cards that'll be seen as such in the coming months with even newer models taking lead. They might not be the latest and greatest, but they can last under good software programming and optimisation and tend to fare well.

 

I'm not too bothered since ill be buying the next sony console anyway so even if my laptop just gets relegated to older games and software i won't be too bothered. I can always lower resolution and stuff if needed, but the 680m should be alright for a while.

 

I don't know if anyone has been following the recent rumors of the console specs but it looks like they are basically Jaguar cores and a Pitcairn based GPU. The PS4 is the most powerful with up to 4GB DDR5 at around 150-200 GB/s. This is total memory, not just VRAM. 1/2 GB is reserved for OS. Game code probably 1/2 to 1 GB or more so really 2-3 GB for graphics. FLOP performance is just a little less than 2 TFLOPs (1.8). And they are coming out in late 2013 at the earliest. What this means to me is that in 2014 a Broadwell/Maxwell combo or a Broadwell/Volcanic Islands combo should be able to match that. I could easily see a laptop GPU with 3GB DDR5 with a 2.5 TFLOP GPU being able to do PS4/Xbox 3 graphics. We're talking mid 2014 so that's only 6-8 months after next gen consoles are released.

 

So 2GB VRAM and 2GB RAM? I guess it's better than 256MB RAM, but still seems like it could restrict the engines of future open world games with lots of persistent data.

 

No, not like that. This is an SoC design, so there are no separate parts. There is 4GB GDDR5 of total system RAM, with a concrete 512MB dedicated to the OS.

 

Even if it is a shared pool of 4GB total memory, it still seems restrictive for future games that will make use of lots of persistent data. The current Xbox has 512MB shared, and it does a little better than the PS3's 256MB fixed RAM for these kinds of games like Skyrim and Fallout New Vegas; however, to hear that the maximum total memory for VRAM and RAM is only 4GB suggests we may run into the same issues with open world games once gain held back by the PS4 in a few years, especially if next gen games have much higher resolution textures, requiring more VRAM.

 

That might be true but many games will design around that. I haven't played Skyrim but it fits even if barely in the PS3's 256+256 configuration. Maybe the new Bethesda games will be even bigger than Skyrim but how much bigger can they really go? Xbox 3 is providing 8 GB RAM but it is DDR3 only. Both systems will go with a unified memory approach.

Anyway, for us laptop users, the point is that a mid-2014 laptop should be able to play all those next gen open world games designed for these consoles no problem. An upper-end laptop with Broadwell and Maxwell or Volcanic Islands should be able to pump out 3 TFLOPs and over 200 GB/s BW GDDR5 with 3 GB or more. Note that 2013 Nvidia is still Kepler so it is iterative but 2014 Maxwell is a new arch so that is when we will see a big increase. AMD's 2014 Volcanic Islands should see good increases too. The best thing about these consoles is they are mostly PC parts (x86 and Radeon, and DDR) instead of exotic (Cell, PPC, XDR memory) so translations should be smoother.

 

That is my concern. It's part of the reason we have seen so many linear "corridor" games with very limited world interaction during this console generation. Since both consoles will incorporate a shared pool and texture resolution will increase dramatically, this leaves even less memory available for persistent data and complex scripting, etc., and in contrast to scalable graphics options such as display resolution, anti-aliasing, etc., the engine for a multiplatform game must be designed around the memory limitations of the system with the smallest amount.

 

Our games right now barely use more than 2GB and aren't even 64-bit. Yet we've still been given impressive open world games which were developed for systems with 512MB of memory. That's being multiplied by at least 6, and you think we're going to suffer?

You just can't compare console specs to PC specs, because they aren't apples to apples.

 

Multiplatform games are developed for use on the PS3 as well, which has only 256MB memory, and is already stretched to the very limit by Skyrim, which is a 32-bit, 2011 game that has programmers at Sony and Bethesda scratching their heads to figure out how to make it work on that console. On PC, this game can make use of up to 3GB RAM on PCs, plus another 3-4GB VRAM for textures, depending on whether you have the official high res texture pack and texture mods installed. Imagine the level of detail in the world interaction and A.I. simulation systems that would have been possible if the engine did not have to run on 256MB RAM in the PS3.

If the next gen playstation has only 4GB total shared memory, and the average texture resolution for games increases significantly from where it is today, I'm concerned we will end up in exactly the same place in a few years again, with these same features in open world games being hindered by the playstation 4 hardware. Features such as world interaction, persistent data, radiant quests, A.I. simulation systems, etc., are fundamental design choices that cannot be scaled up for the PC, the way you can scale up lighting, AA and textures.

 

For PS4, I suspect any open world game will not use more than 1.5-2 GB of VRAM which leaves at 1.5-2 GB main RAM for world data and state. Remember, just like today's GPU's use way more than today's console's 256 MB VRAM, future PC's will use more than consoles. If you get a GPU with 4 GB GDDR5 in the future, don't worry, game makers will be able to take advantage of it by letting you select ultra settings. So that leaves us with 1.5-2 GB game data. Is that enough for the next five years? Remember that PC RAM requirements are higher than consoles because they have higher OS overhead. Skyrim is a really big game that almost fit in 256 MB RAM. Making a game much bigger than Skyrim won't be limited by RAM but by dev costs to build the world. Even if you don't feel 1.5 GB is enough, you will be in a lot better position than you are now with multi-platform games having to fit in today's console RAM.

 

If you have some time to spend, here is a really interesting article about gaming industry and next gens : NES – notenoughshaders.com – The Rise of Costs, the Fall of Gaming

 

I don't think you realize how much of a discount big companies like Sony and MS can get on hardware, especially when dealing with AMD, which is being besieged from both sides by Nvidia and Intel and needs a big boost. They will be picking these GPU's up in bulk for a few dollars more than manufacturing cost (a fraction of what they get sold for in the normal market).