Is The GTX 660m More Powerful Than The PS3 Graphics Card?

Here are the specs for the PS3 one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSX_'Reality_Synthesizer'

Then the 660m specs are...



GPU Engine Specs:

384 coresCUDA Cores

835 MHzGraphics Clock (MHz)

30.4Texture Fill Rate (billion/sec)


Memory Specs:

2000Memory Clock

GDDR5Memory Interface

128bitMemory Interface Width

64.0Memory Bandwidth (GB/sec)



Feature Support:

4.1OpenGL

PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0Bus Support

YesCertified for Windows 7

3D Vision, CUDA, DirectX 11, PhysX, Optimus, OpenCL,

DirectComputeSupported Technologies

2-waySLI Options



Display Support:

3840 x 2160Maximum Digital Resolution

Up to 2048x1536Maximum VGA Resolution

YesHDCP

YesHDMI



I'm asking this because I ordered a laptop with 660m and I'm wondering if the graphics quality can match PS3.

 

miles faster about at least 3 times even upto 5 times. my 9600m gt should just edge the ps3 gpu as it has more memory and unified shaders are better but ps3 gpu has slightly better fillrates compared tio my 9600m gt.

660m is a lot faster anyway.

 

youre talking about a 6 year old console system and comparing it to the latest series of computer graphics card

 

by far. don't even worry about the spec sheet, it's quite a bit more complicated than that, but the spec sheet isn't going to say otherwise anyway.

As stated, it's not exactly a surprise that a console that cost $500 in total (on release), created 6 years ago, doesn't have a GPU that is as powerful as a brand new GPU that probably costs about $200 on its own (more expensive and newer tech).

Tech performance doubles every few years. Mobile phones are starting to push towards console performance levels.

 

Thanks for info. Can you guys explain to me how PS3 continues to be able to play better graphics games every couple years and stays relevant for 6+ years? I don't understand how consoles can stay relevant and keep playing games that push the bar but PC's need constant upgrades.

 

because consoles play at either 1280x720 or lower res and require the cell processor more and developers code the game to use the brute force of a ps3 and hence games run on ps3. Also ps3 can play games that are dx9 which most games are now but even then the ps3 can run these games at dx9 as developers are forced to use shader 3.

Also ps3 plays at 30fps on quite a lot of games and only a few are 60fps like gt5 and that res is at 1280x1080 as the developers mainly used the cell cpu.

High end PC's can play at ultra detail and gaming companies make sometimes poor console ports or games that look near lifelike with a gtx 680 or 7970 and play games at 1080p or even higher.

most games at 1280x800 run at 60fps on my computer on high with no aa or at least 35fps as that is because they have similar graphics to consoles and my 9600m gt is on par with the ps3 gpu but slightly better because of vram.

 

Great answer. So basically lower resolution and FPS's. In that case though why do people say the 660m will be irrelevant in 2-3 years? What if I'm okay with not having 1080p and less than 40 FPS? I can drop my native resolution at any time.

 

I dont know the exact specifics but I'd figure that its because the console is solely geared towards gaming (well not solely but its primary purpose is to game) and the coding that goes for that system tries its best to make use of every ounce of power it can offer.

Take release games from the Ps3; iirc games like Warhawk and uhh...resistance. Those games werent making full use of the ps3's capabilities whereas now games are making full use of it (or I think they are). The coding for the ps3 was difficult at first for developers.

 

Not all games play at 720p. Final Fantasy 13 plays suprisingly well at 1080p and there are some others that do so as well.

 

PC game graphics advance at a rapid pace, while consoles remain at their tepid 720p or lower resolution and usually sacrifice detail compared with PC counterparts. It also depends on how well a game is ported. If they design for PS3 and do a sloppy port to PC, the PC version will require more horsepower because it's not optimized.

Also as mentioned, games are specifically designed for the console it's on, one set of hardware, a lot easier to fully optimize the code versus using a generic API like DirectX or OpenGL.

 

So again let me ask. If I drop resolution can 660m stay decent for a few years? I don't care about 60 FPS. I'm okay with like 30-40.

 

the only good thing about the ps3 is that sony have continually developed a new version of it. A new ps3 is coming out with similar tech to now. Hopefully it has a 28nm gpu and at least a 32nm cpu as the cell takes quite of power.

edit:clippersfan86 660m will easily play at 720p mainly at 60fps high/ultra without aa.

 

For 5 years? I can drop a Lenovo 1080p laptop to 720p at any time right?

 

Dont drop native resolution. That should be the last step to take when improving FPS of a game. Start off with tweaking the graphics settings; turning down the AA or HBAO settings (if a game has it)

 

That's something I'd do a couple years from now. Just saying in let's say 5 years if I haven't bought a new laptop I can drop to 720p no problem? How much does Anti Aliasing affect FPS? Would a casual PC gamer notice with it on or off smoothing out edges?

 

Consoles have a 720p or lower resolution, 30fps, narrow field of vision, low quality textures and large weapon models.

 

And that never bothers me . Maybe I can use this graphics card for 10 years just about if I drop to 720p after a few years. I don't notice big difference in 720p and 1080p honestly.

 

It's got everything to do with it being a closed ecosystem and being able to write specifically for it instead of trying to be everything for everyone taking into account the lowest common denominator hardware. Even within the console space you have porting or using less optimized engines for a specific platform, which is fine since usually the trade-off is faster and less expensive development cycles vs. a slightly less optimized for a specific platform experience. In the end gameplay is king, not graphics, for many titles. But the prestigious houses will excel on all fronts of production quality.

This is why titles like mgs4 or uncharted look phenomenal, exclusive to a specific platform and highly optimized by an extremely competent development house.

Also, ps3 is NOT using dx9 or anything resembling a Microsoft API outside of their involvement with Cg which is the roots of psgl. Most top tier developers are going to abandon the api and go to the metal anyway.

To answer the original question, the 660 has far more raw performance than the ps3's rsx. But comparing it to PC gaming is like apples and oranges.

EDIT: fixed typo about Cg and pgsl.

 

Think of it this way. 5 years ago we had the 8700m GT (released June 2007) as the most powerful mobile card. The Llano IGP outperforms it in every respect, even on par with the 8800m GTX released later in 2007, and the Llano APU's were released a year ago! So you end up with as much performance in the integrated GPU as the most powerful dedicated GPU in 4 years time... and in a sub $500 laptop.

And the 660m is a mid grade card. The 8600m GT was very popular in 2007, but it couldn't even manage a slide show playing most of the games released in the last year or so.

Ten years ago we had GeForce 4 that probably even couldn't handle web browsing today.

So no, you won't get 10 years out of your video card unless you only play games released through 2014, maybe a few after that.

 

This has been discussed a lot of times. You can't compare a console gpu with a desktop gpu because beside the "generation" where it's derived, it doesn't work exactly as a pc gpu.
Both ps3 and 360 uses gpu and other gpu capabilities directly into CPU threads (in ps3, these are called SPEs).
It's not an apple to apple comparison.

Look an uncharted/gt5 game could not be possible on a pc due to the use of the console particular architecture.

360 on the other hand has similar architecture to a common x86 pc and ports/straight ports if made with 360 sku from starters are highly easy to achieve.
In other words, Gears of War 3 can be ported without an hitch on pc.
But if they does, they loose exclusive.

 

At 720p it couldn't? BTW.... I already told you.. 660m is a class 1 card. Bottom of the high tier, not a middle tier. One place shows it as a very high middle tier. There are plenty of charts illustrating this already that I've posted. Unless you did your own research and made your own chart.

 

depends on the game... the 8600m gt could certainly play many modern games, but you'd have to drop resolution and settings nice and low. in 5 years, the 660m will likely be in the same position.

it will probably at least run most games. you'll have to turn down graphics and resolution on high end AAA titles.

don't worry about "class" charts. that's hardly relevant to anything, it's pretty much just a made-up arbitrary grouping. It's not going to change the reality that in 5 years, you'll need to turn off high-end graphics settings and run AAA games in low res.

These types of games are certainly possible on the PC. What may not be easy is making a simple port of these completed games and getting good performance, because of the effort spent optimizing for the PS3. That's very different than saying that GT5 isn't possible on a PC. It just wouldn't perform well without optimization effort, but that's somewhat obvious.

 

Comparison of Laptop Graphics Cards - Notebookcheck.net Tech

660m is listed as a middle-low Class 1 graphics card. Class 1 is the highest tier.

 

I have a lot to learn and I acknowledge it... but if it's listed as class one and high tier in every chart I see... I'd say it's better than mid tier in a full scale comparison. Regardless... I don't notice difference between 720p and 1080p for the most part on my TV's.. so I don't imagine it would make a huge difference on PC gaming? Medium setting, AA off, 720p for example could make this laptop usable for 5+ years?

 

You're looking for concrete, definite answers to a question there just aren't concrete answers to.

 

Yeah, so it's better than the cards that are below it. But what does that tell you about performance 5 years from now?

Assume that the following is true:

1. A
2. If A, then B.

Now, I have two questions for you.

1. B?
2. X?

---

If you said Yes to #1 and "I don't know" to #2, then you are right. Apply the same logic to the GPU ranking you found.

GPU A is better than GPU B.

Is A better than B? Yes.

Will A run AAA games in 1080p with medium settings in 5 years? -> Not enough information

 

Also, most console games have 2xAA or no AA, no AF, low quality shadow setting, low res textures and assets.

There are quite a few laptops available these days that can run most recent AAA games at these same console graphics settings and 1280x720 display resolution.

 

I didn't realize PC hardware leaves you in the dark that much. Have any of you had a laptop or desktop (kept same GPU) for 5 years and managed by dropping resolution+settings? I'm just curious if people have experience with it.

 

You could probably get by upgrading once every 5 years assuming that you are willing to forego access to a small number of high-end titles that will be released late in the life of your GPU, and that you'll dropping resolution and settings dramatically for most titles released late in the life of your GPU.

 

Which I'm okay with. Graphics are nowhere near the top of my priority list man. I think you PC gamers are spoiled . I don't care if my Graphics aren't top of the line although obviously it's cool to have. I'd rather run 720p and get a couple extra years out of my laptop than keep upgrading to stay 1080p.

 

I've kept the same GPU for 3 years a few times. I usually end up upgrading when the tradeoff between how much I'm turning down detail ends up taking enough away from the experience that I will go ahead and drop money. Also, it's fun to buy new stuff every couple-few years.

Moving from the 1366x768 display I had on a 5730 to this 1080p on the 675M was a world of improvement both in-game and out. It's like all my games have new life. Not to mention this thing is quieter and i feel less heat on my hand.

I usually upgrade for a multitude of reasons other than GPU alone, but the GPU being near the top of list was part of the decision.

 

I suppose you guys are right that I'm looking too far ahead though. In 3-4 years I'm sure I'll be able to buy a nice desktop or laptop.

 

I might too, if I could be guaranteed that 720p would be guaranteed as playable on all games (or even most AAA games) at 5 years post purchase.

I just said dramatically lower. It might be the difference between 60+ fps at 1080p for games today vs. bouncing around at 20-35 fps in 800x500 or maybe 1024x600 or so 5 years out.

We don't know for sure. We can't know. Technology is still pushing forward fast overall, and it sometimes leaps, other times it lags, and we have no way of knowing the state of the market in 2017. Maybe AAA titles will hit the wayside and lower graphics quality f2p titles that are easier to run will take over. Maybe some sort of low latency wireless technology will take over and everything will be streaming. Maybe computer technology will take an extra-big leap in a few months and AAA games will start to transition away from current DX parts quickly and games simply won't run on today's modern GPUs in just a few years. No one knows.

 

I dunno. My friend has my old Vostro 1500 with 8600m GT and he can't play any recently released big titles unless you run 800x480 at minimum detail at 20fps. It just isn't realistic.

Obviously we don't know what the future holds, but we know from historical trending and limited knowledge of future technology and products where we likely will be in 5 years.

I think I've been doing my part (this is just from the last year, I have stuff that goes back 5 years):

http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...clevo-p150em-review-lots-680m-benchmarks.html
http://forum.notebookreview.com/sag...er-np6110-clevo-w110er-first-look-review.html
DV6z & AMD Llano Optimization Guide
DV6z Cooling Mod
AMD E-450 vs Intel i3-2367
AMD Llano A8-3510MX vs Intel Sandy Bridge i5-2520M
AMD Radeon 6750m (7690m)
AMD A8 Llano 6620G IGP
AMD E-350 / Radeon 6310 IGP

You can quote notebookcheck all you want, but it's just their ranking of classification. It's all about relative performance and cost/performance ratio.

 

I'm not saying in general you haven't done research. I'm saying you haven't done a full scale GPU research including ALL graphics cards like the chart I posted and others which all have 660m in the "high" tier or "Class 1" tier. I can tell you're very knowledgeable and respected and I'm not trying to call you out by any means. Just saying based on what I've read in terms of comparisons and reviews... 660m is not a mid tier card. Unless you're talking about middle of the high tier, then yes that's accurate from what I've read.

I can see all of your point though. The bottom line is...

A. Nobody knows what the future holds.

B. I should probably buy a new computer instead of sacrificing all of the settings when that time comes.

 

That's my whole point. In 3-4 years' time integrated graphics will likely surpass the 660m, and a $600 notebook will likely put it to shame. And to be honest for some reason I had 650m on my brain, not 660m. So I do agree 660m is a tier 1 "high performance" card if you want to call it that, as long as it has GDDR5 RAM. Although it is still bottlenecked by the 128-bit bus. But in any case, a laptop can easily last someone 3-4 years for non gaming purposes. But for gaming purposes 3 years is about the stretch I'd expect from anything but the most top end SLI or Crossfire configurations.

 

Fair enough. The 660m does have GDDR5.

 

You cant just compare video cards in consoles to ones in a computer, it just doesn't work like that. Console games are coded with the specific console in mind while PC games are coded to work with a million different configurations. Also keep in mind the reason to own a console like PS3 is because of the exclusives they offer like Uncharted, Killzone, little big planet, Heavy Rain, The last of us, Beyond, Gran Turismo etc.

 

I agree with the one above me. Comparing hardware is one thing, comparing how they will affect each system is a TOTALLY different thing

 

I had a XBOX 360 and got Skyrim for it. It looked horrible: the draw distance was pathetic, everything was blurry, the shadows sucked and to top it off, there was no mod support and I couldn't customize anything. That was the last straw for me: as soon as I got Skyrim for the PC, I sold my XBOX.

Yes, it's true that when it comes to gaming you can keep your consoles for many years after a PC will no longer be relevant, but it's a trade off I'm not willing to accept. If it requires coughing up the dough every few years - so be it. That experiment with consoles is over for me.

Plus, since I'm mainly a RTS/Turn-based/RPG geek, I really don't like most of the console games, especially exclusives like Dawn of War, Uncharted, Killzone and the like.

 

That's exactly what I tried to explain. Console architecture is fairly more complex than a pc, on the paper the gpu alone wouldn't be good for today games, if not older titles.

 

describing console architecture as more complex than PC architecture doesn't make sense.

are you trying to describe the cell CPU?

Current consoles use cheap, custom PPC processors and reasonably powered custom graphics cards using technology from the era in which they were first released. Modern processors and modern graphics are much more powerful. There is a lot of hype surrounding the cell CPU, which was primarily good at being cheap more than anything else, despite the hype. Both consoles prioritize cost above all else (by necessity). Most of the complex, high end architectural features that were available at the time are specifically left out of both processors to reduce costs.

When you compare a processor or graphics card that was released in the past few months that costs as much as a complete console originally released in 2006, there's simply not much common ground. Keep in mind that compute performance doubles every couple of years per cost, combine that with the fact that we're looking at parts that are maybe 3x as expensive as the console parts (or more).

 

hehe no, no no no. Just....... No.

 

I know a fellow who has a laptop with a 9600M GT, a four year old card, and he plays Skyrim at medium or so details. No guarantee that your card might endure for quite as long, but it isn't out of the question.
I, too, plan on keeping the laptop I'm about to order for some time. It'll probably play any PC game on satisfactory graphics levels for some years. And by then, the PS4 or whatever probably has come out, so I can play the latest titles on that. And when the performance level of computers has left consoles in the dust again, I'll simply buy another high-end laptop. That's my plan anyways.

 

Sorry, you're right, Meaker as well.

What I tried to say is that programming on a ps3 giving cell capabilities which uses Spes/Spus for handling different tasks instead leaving all to the gpu/CPU is a bit more complex than doing so on a pc.
You have to face bottlenecks everywhere, from VRAM to Ram, the developers need to master the "architecture" of the console itself to get decent results.
Gt5 and Uncharted titles can be made for sure on pc, but probably they will require a complete overhaul of the engine, giving they use the particular hardware as much as they can.

As you said, Cell CPU is outclassed by today's CPUs by looking at the technical data. It was even when it got released.
Consoles will always be derived from pc architecture (in this case both ps3 and 360 are derived from PowerPc) and in the near future I expect at least a quad core CPU running 64 bit instructions.
But probably that would not be on par with pc standards, by raw data, of that period of time.
Still I think the point remains; consoles are far less powered than pc, but a straight comparison doesn't make sense.
The point is how the hardware is used to get a final product, in this case exclusives, running.
God of War 3 is another example of what a ps3 can do if programmed in the right way.
Much like it happened with Ps2 Cell at the time.

 

They make it look "good" but really its just the tricks I talked about.to someone used to high end graphics it looks mushy.

 

Thats true.
Actually you can see some typical nvidia traits/rendering methods in some games, such uncharted, when theres shadow casting/hdr.
Its noticieable enough if you come from nvidia like i do since 14 years now.

 

You do realise sony made big losses as the ps3 cost a lot to make but there plan I believe was to shrink the components when new process tech is available and the cheaper it gets to mass produce at same performance and architecture.

The cell cpu is very good for gaming as game developers use this mainly as the gpu performance and memory of both system and gpu are very basic. It helps that developers code the game for the ps3 which uses same spec so they can test it to the max and release it at optimatal quality and framerate knowing each ps3 has same performance.

 

Regardless of sony taking a loss (there are several expensive components on the ps3: cpu, gpu, bluray drive, hard drive, motherboard) the cell CPU cost about $100 originally.

 

Which was nothing compared to a high end CPU at the time.

A core 2 duo E6700 was $350 at launch.