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

The Blu-Ray was the biggest cost hit Sony took on the PS3 but it paid off in the end because blu-ray won over HDDVD.

 

True- and don't they pick up a royalty on every drive / disc sold?

 

I believe so. It was a gamble by Sony, but not much of one. I think it was the superior optical format personally, only had an Xbox 360 at the time so had the HD-DVD drive.

 

The simple fact that the 360 didn't have HD-DVD built in or added as a pack-in for every 360 sold after it launched was the single biggest reason it was never going to go anywhere. No developer was going to release stuff unless it was built-in or packed in every box (aka kinect).

Not to mention what you said, BR was also superior.

 

And sony bought out HDDVD with an offer of joint manufacturing bluray components.

 

The point of the cell CPU was to mask the true nature of the consoles. Above all this is what consoles do. The cell never did anything it claimed to IMO. The xbox having far less cell power never had trouble keeping up or beating the PS3 in various games and it is painfully obvious that even with a standard set of hardware that all the optimization in the world cannot keep up with the raw power of gaming on PCs. Even if the cell chip in the PS3 was that great you had the whole problem of the fact that many games are cross platform and at the least the companies that make them are cross platform so no one was going to go digging into extreme optimizing of very bare to metal code just so they could squeeze every last drop of performance out of the cell. It would only make it that much harder to code for the xbox and then the PC. So what all companies have done is just turn down the graphics and put limits in place to meet the criteria of the console company.

This was the same reason apple used PowerPCs for a while, it was a trick where they could use different hardware so their systems could not be benchmarked along side PC counter parts, then no one could prove that they were not as fast and so apple could claim anything they wanted to. The consoles just took that approach and let their marketing teams loose. Clearly it worked.

The facts are that right from the get go most console games just cant handle anything close to the native 1080p that most TVs sit at. People like to say that consoles can be optmized but really its just compromises. Limited FPS, limited resolutions, turning off features. The name of the game is limits.

That is not to say that consoles do not have a point but lets not kid ourselves on their ability to last, they cannot, the only thing they can do is ask their users to accept a lower standard of quality. As long as the users do not educate themself and sit far enough from the TV it passes.

What you really buy into with a console is the idea that everyone else will be forced to accept the low quality together and that will make it acceptable. Someone with more money cannot buy into more FPS etc... Some people like this and it is a valid model for gaming. A more controlled environment in echange for various compromises. However since consoles shifted the the online era and information spreads more quickly we have seen that no matter what you do life isnt fair. Alot of people learned about altivernative superior input methods (think xim 3 or fight sticks), and various things like input lag on TVs to get the edge.

At this point even an entry level 660M is gong to blow away the graphics on a console. And if the game does not demand it the card will just push the fps faster allowing you to enjoy a smooth experience. So the answer to the question is yes a 660M is way more powerful than any console.

 

This isn't accurate at all. PPC was a very formidable threat to Intel's x86 architecture, particularly in the 90's, that just couldn't keep up in the end.

Why was the PowerPC architecture unable to keep up with Intel? - Quora

 

Not quite true HTWingNut. Sony has, through the years released many superior products to only have them be beaten by competitors. Remember Betamax Vs VHS? VHS movies were inferior visually but they won.

I have a PS3 and am somewhat a Sony fan but despise how they force gamers to be the test units for their products that they want to launch on bigger scales. The Cell and Bluray were Sony's priorities with the PS3; none of which are needed for gaming. Sadly I use my PS3 for more of a BR player than anything.

The Cell was supposed to be used in many other applications but is proving to be somewhat of a flop (I believe). I really hope Sony brings out a GAMING system and stop worrying just about proprietary technology. While Bluray did win (and I am glad for Sony because they needed it) they better be careful what formats and functions they try to cram down consumers throats because they aren't buying it. 130 million PS2 users did NOT jump on the Sony bandwagon. Remember the phrases:
"The next gen starts when we say it does"
"The ps3 will deliever 120FPS on two 1080P TVs"
"The PS3 will be 4D."
SMH....

And back to topic. Ya your card is more powerful; its a midrange card. You will play games for a year or two on decent settings and need a new gaming rig.

And finally I noticed a lot of broscience in this thread.

 

@PubFiction

The point of the consoles is not to put everyone on a weak platform and let marketing teams loose to fool the public into buying it. That's absurd.

The point is to make it easy for people to play games. PC gaming and console gaming are in a large part so different and require different amounts of effort to realize that comparing them is absurd. If you want to compare straight graphical prowess, sure.. a $1000-2000 PC will trounce a console in graphical fidelity as long as the developers are good. That's why it's good thing that graphics aren't the end-all of why a game is good.

At the time the 360 and PS3 were released, they were definitely competitors with the PC from a performance standpoint. But, they have to endure a much longer life cycle than the hardcore PC gamer will withstand. I have all 3 consoles, and games like Uncharted 2/3 and Journey still look amazing. My wife is playing Skyrim on 360 while I play it on my laptop. You know.. the 360 version is smooth and plays well. Sure the textures are not nearly as crisp and my laptop is just steps better in visual fidelity. But at the end of the day all that falls away while you're playing the game. On the 360, Skyrim is definitely an acceptable and playable experience. And she plays it leaned back in a comfy chair while I have my laptop on my lap.

There's some PC games that would lend themselves well to this type of play, in fact I play more games on my laptop with my wired 360 controller these days than with a mouse/keyboard (and i'm an old school stalwart that started WASD circle strafing in mid 90's with doom).

Where am I going with this.. bah... 660M > PS3/360. But that alone does not tell the story of why console gaming is fun and should continue to exist.

 

If the point was only to make it easy to play games then why would they not update the platform once every 2 years to keep up with technology?

Its not the point. The business model of a console is to purposely make a long life cycle so that by the end when the cost comes way down you are raking in the cash. The problem with this model is that if consumers realize they are over paying for garbage hardware later in the game or that the total cost of ownership is going to be high, they would never do it, so you must unleash a marketing team to fool people into thinking otherwise. Second if the point was only for ease of gaming they would not need to sell the consoles at a loss, in fact they would not bother locking hardware down and using silly custom cell chips they would just use typical x86 hardware and they would know that they will sell because it is easy right?

You cannot explain the lack of console updates on at least a biannual schedule without admitting that. Consoles run a loss leader model just like printers and over priced ink and many other services. If the only point of a console was to make it easy to play games MS would have just done it with the PC.

 

1. The normal consumer isn't going to spend the money to upgrade the console.
2. It would end up fragmenting their user base. Some games would only end up working on the 2 year newer version. That cycle isn't nearly long enough especially when AAA game dev cycles are sometimes more than that.
3. 2 year cycle wouldn't be enough of an upgrade to entice the user base to move on it. With the current cycle, the new console is far and away more powerful and more worth upgrading to.
4. The consoles would end up being much more expensive. It would be release-year early-adopter prices for almost the entire cycle every cycle. Sales would diminish. Also, it would be harder for the consoles initially to be sold at a loss because the cycle wouldn't be long enough to make the R&D money back without charging PC like prices.

You, my friend, are a PC gamer. You don't follow the economics, business model or user base for the typical console gamer. Keep buying PCs. The model you want does exist, it's called the PC gamer market. As long as you keep buying top hardware every 1.5-2 years and don't pirate games and there are other like-minded individuals, your platform of choice will continue to survive.

 

1. No, lots of people bought the xbox 360 after RROD every 2 years, lots of people upgrade consoles to get special editions custom paint jobs, etc.. Will it be everyone, no, but plenty of people upgrade, phones, computers and everything else every couple years so why would consoles break this?

2. This is utterly false there is no good example of this. They make the console and they can keep the standards in place to make sure this does not happen. The new console would simply be faster period. The PC and phone industry pull this off fine, what breaks software is other software way more often than hardware, IE the move from XP to vista.

3. Once again utterly false you promise people new power and all 5 million COD players jump without thinking. They do it with phones, they do it with tablets, they do it with laptops and desktops.

4 You are right here. Which just points out that what I said was exactly true this is what the model is really about. Not ease of use, not bare to metal programming, not the most efficient state of the art processor no one uses.

I know I am a PC gamer, I am just pointing out that people claiming console X ages well, or the cell chip is so amazing have just been duped by the hype. I do follow economics and I understand perfectly that one of the most popular business models in the US that ranges from cell phones to printers to consoles is to sucker people into a long term expensive committment in exchange for a short term savings.

 

@Pub, a few things:

1. hfm isn't fighting you
2. it's good that you prefer the PC market, so do most of us here
3. Sega already tried the rapid-release console trick, they basically went out of business. Consumers ended up figuring out that it's better to wait than to buy new consoles every two years. It's a huge, but fragile market. There's no point complaining to us about it. If you aren't happy with the way the market works, then stick with PCs.

Last, if you're going to analyze a market, it's more pragmatic to try and understand what the motives and perspectives are of the people involved (buyers in particular), and to try to understand why it is they make the choices they do, what the benefits are for the people making purchases, etc. than it is to assume that everyone is stupid.

 

Blu Ray won only because it had "adult movies" first.

 

and because of the ps3. and warner bros switched over. the adult film industry basically just followed warner bros... and bluray had higher sales the entire time, which motived warner bros to switch in the first place. and those higher sales were likely due at least in part to the fact that people actually had bluray players because of the ps3. so, there you go.

 

1. "Lots of people" getting custom paint jobs is less than a margin of error in sales numbers. We can both make up arbitrary phrases for the market penetration of that.

2. By "Won't Work" i think I made a mis-speak. I meant there would always have to be looking to the legacy and devs would have to make sure not only to be cross-platform but be segment-aware within a platform. Any new hardware features would have to be backwards compatible or risk leaving people behind. 2 years is SHORT. I suppose Mac/PC already has this problem as well, looking at you SteamPlay. I'll concede it would be possible, just create irate developers as much as it does now on PC, see John Carmack JC Speaks out about PC development I'm not saying console mfgs wouldn't make sure they launch with good drivers? Right? If I'm not mistaken Sony has already said PS4 is NOT going to be backwards compatible. Probably smart as the BC on PS3 cost them an arm and a leg.

3. Yes there would be 5-10 million sales quickly, there always is. What about the 65 million mark we've hit now with the 360? Took almost 7 years to get there and it's still a little low. I would imagine maybe if there was one platform instead of two it might have hit that magic 100 million number. I think 2013 will be a good year to get a new SKU out there .. It'll be going on 8 years for 360 and 7 for PS3... It's pretty amazing that it's been this long and there's some great looking games coming out. If I had Uncharted 3 on PC and it looked like it does on PS3 i wouldn't complain.

What would happen with these ultra short cycles is selling at a loss to make it up over the long cycle would cease to exist. The PS3 was costing Sony over $800 to build at launch. PS3 would have cost over $1000 easy retail if it had to pull a profit out of the gate for Sony, then the retailer smacks their typical 10-20% markup on top of that. There are not that many people who would pay that much. After 2 years they were still losing $200/unit and neither system had sold enough units at that point to consider it a successful life cycle. Hardware would be at an unattainable price for many in this model, including the precious hardcore set of who some would end up getting priced out. The launch price of the PS3 at a loss was already too high as it was. Consoles with long cycles serve a market that wants it badly and live in an economy that works for many consumers. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

Bottom line is that a large portion of the 65 million people who's bought one of these things probably don't care THAT much that the graphics aren't at GTX 680 levels. They just have fun playing their games. I never hear anyone complaining about the graphical prowess of those consoles in the general population that makes up the majority of the consumers. If you want to talk marketers that bilk people of their hard earned money. Look to Apple that does a fantastic job of telling everyone that they need a new piece of expensive hardware when they probably don't. At least they stuff they sell is general purpose, not gaming only. I can't wait to see if Apple enters this space.

 

Just to add my 2 pence...

A lot of people I know are ignorant to the fact that PC gaming is much better than console gaming and are oblivious to the fact that the PC market is open to "them" as well as "World of Warcraft geeks"...

There are many other reasons, far too many variables to begin quantifying - I've just named one of the many.

 

pc gaming is worse then ps3 as there is hardly anyone online in most pc games after a few months. ps3 on the other hand most games have people online as there are more of them. I cannot even get the online achievements on dirt 3 because hardly anyone plays it online. My brother plays gt5 and theres tons of people on gt5 online and its even an older game although very well sold and popular game.

Also other games like f1 2011 etc are popular I believe online in ps3. Problem is there is far less pc gamers tghen console gamers.

 

better and best is subjective as hell. I love PC gaming dont get me wrong, but to say its 'better' than console gaming is dumb. Some of the most fun ive ever had in gaming has happened this gen with consoles with games like Uncharted, God of War, Heavy Rain, Gran Turismo, Killzone, Infamous etc etc, games you cannot get on PC. I wouldnt give up PC gaming either because on the other hand they have the best stuff when it comes to multiplat FPS, RTS, MMO's etc.

 

Hate to hijack this thread but is there any word on where the next gen consoles will be regarding GPU performance? Will they even be close to GTX 680 levels?

 

Last rumor I read they would be around a AMD HD6450 performance. Not awesome. The target is to be around 6x the power of current gen and about $300. Currently the GTX 680 is about 16x more powerful. So no, likely won't be even half as powerful as the GTX 680.

 

you do realise the 6450 is less powerful then my 9600m gt and the ps3 is similar to my 9600m gt as it is based on the desktop 7800. Also I heard before it shiould be 6670.

ps4 should be more powerful as the ps3 is rumoured to be being given 22nm cell cpu and 28nm nvidia gpu so who knows ps4 may use the same config but more power hungry version like the fat ps3. We should get full hd gaming in the ps4 even at 60fps.

 

I've read the same about possibility of the 6670, which is still lacking in comparison to a GTX 680.

As for PS4, that would be very interesting as Sony gave up on Cell altogether, and so did IBM, who are the actual patent holders of that tech. It was IBM that was manufacturing them also, so would be interesting if it does have Cell. Since all three companies that were involved, IBM, Sony and Toshiba have abandoned and dropped the cell tech, who will be supplying it?

 

PubFiction
The reason why xbox normally has better graphics is because the 360 has a better video card that I believe off the top of my head has unified shaders. The ps3 has the old vertex and pixel shaders of the 7800. Cpu wise both are similar.

also i mean to say the rsx is based on the 7800 and mine has similar performance.

 

PS4 specs 10x power of PS3 - ProductReviews

Look at this, if this is true then 1080p gaming with high optimisation at 60fps is possible for most new games. The gpu alone is at least 18x more powerful then current ps3

 

how is this a similarity?

also, as far as ps4 specs, it's all just rumor for now.

 

Sony is bleeding so bad right now and their gaming division is in the toilet which is why they are waiting so long to bring out a new product. I would not expect bleeding edge performance "orders of magnitude" greater than the current generation this go around. I think they will adopt a moderate approach as both MS and Sony are seeing how Ninty brings out OLD technology but creates games specific to their market that are fun. Sony can't do another "let's hope to sell 120 million and we will make our system losses up on the back end in gaming sales." The RSX was about equivalent to a 7800GTX which wasn't exactly dated when the system launched. I think they will go for a 28nm GPU that is capable but probably on the lower-mid range scale.

However, even a mid-range card in 2013/2014 is a huge leap over what we have today. that is why it's hard to answer questions like "will my computer run games 3 years from now?" The optimization in the closed-box consoles with their new processors will likely be too much for the most high end notebook that is sold today. It's really a "wait and see" and "enjoy what you have now" attitude that needs to take place. Now is NOT the best time to be buying bleeding edge (if you can't really swing it) PCs as new consoles are somewhat around the corner. It's best to get them a year or so after their release and then you can run "console like" settings for a good while. No doubt I will be upgrading in a couple years as this will have almost no value. I bought it last year to enjoy for the time being fully aware of what is coming out. You have to pay to play in the high end world of notebook PC's. These damn Steam Sales are sure giving me my monies worth though

 

For perspective the GPU is roughly the same raw computing power as a 6990 as that churns out 1.6 Teraflops. So again, it does go to show that the GPU will likely not be a top tier card but rather one with a lot of the newer DX technology and built on the 28nm fabrication process. They can talk CPU all they want but the GPU is the real winner. The ps2 CPU was more powerful than the Xbox but the Xbox blew away the PS2 in the graphics department.

 

Meant to say ps3 rsx gpu has similar numbers as in mpixels/texels etc.

 

Unless this console is going to cost £500-600 it wont have tahiti in it.

Also DX11.5? :/

 

Well a 7850 is around £165. Pretty sure people will buy the new ps4 for £300+ if the graphics look stunning. Also most of this is just a guessing game.

 

Uh no, you have to factor in all the costs. Profit for Sony, profit for distributors, profit for retailers etc.

And you have to factor in the manufacturing costs. Can keep hoping, but I really doubt you'll see anything more than 6x power of the current gen.

Sony did not profit much from PS3 after about 6 years. They won't be making that mistake again.

 

It should be. Lets not forget sony will want theres to be the best so it makes no sense putting a low end card in then they lose customers to microsoft, even the knew wii u will be decent. I reckon something like the 7850/7870 is perfect as it is a low enough poewr consuming card.

 

It does not matter if it is 6x or 10x the power by moores law the PS3 is suppose to be 32x the power otherwise it isnt keeping up.