PS4 GPU vs Nvidia GTX 660M

For the little that we know about the PS4 hardware and graphics do you guys think our G46vw would be future proof for at least 2 years or do guys think with much better console hardware our laptops would be obsolete for gaming early next year?

 

Don't expect max settings, but a 660m is great for the next two years

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

Yeah. The way multiplatform games are made now, and with the "next generation" consoles being fairly modest when it comes to demand for single and multithreaded performance, a 660m will last for a long while. There'll be higher resolution options and more AA, better filtering, that sort of thing, on the desktop boards. The consoles and amd/apu PCs will have extra OpenCL type effects such as TressFX in Tomb Raider. But the games will run, and run well, for a long time on medium to high.

The thing is that until we see OpenCL take off, and until we get "mainstream" hardware with programmable instruction arrays over multiple processing elements on an integrated bus, there's not going to be any sort of change on how games are constructed.

Meanwhile, it makes no economical sense for developers and publishers to cut out the middle of the PC market, by not scaling their software in the first place. Basically, it makes sense to develop for PC with scaling hardware in mind again, rather than just develop for xbox and then port, like has been a tendency for the last bunch of years. So in practice, what will happen with games-development from now on is that low-end console ports and the "middle" PC/laptop will very likely look better and play more smoothly over time compared to the games that come out now.

Specifically, hardware wise, the ps4 and nextbox will have more graphics card grunt than a g46. Not by a whole lot, though.. Besides, you can turn off AA and turn up the resolution on your laptop. And play Spotify or whatever, skype, in the background while playing. While setting it up not to throttle your online connection. That won't happen on a console Sony or MS makes..

 

Well consoles are more like your media device to watch movies,rent movies,gaming. with gaming PCs are more flexible and versatile been able to run photoshop, any other utility apps not to count the huge savings in games. Now where everything can go down the drain for Sony and MS would be with cloud gaming and not needing a high end computer to do so. that can hurt the console business if developers support that idea which I highly doubt it.

 

A 660M is definitely safe for the next two years. Consoles get away with modest hardware compared to gaming rigs on account of the game development/optimization and having less operating system overhead.

 

The only concern is if Vram requirements skyrocket now the consoles are sporting a lot more than they used to.

 

660m will be ok for 720p gaming for the next two years, but not for 1080p.

 

I am with Meaker and HTWingNut. the HD7850 equivalent GPU on the PS4 is a good deal stronger than 660m, not to mention with massive memory bandwidth advantage.

660m is still a very capable GPU though and should hold it's own.

 

Apples and oranges. Comparing a 660M (or any gpu) to the ps4 is useless. They serve different markets. There are ecosystems, exclusive games, and a number of other inherent differences that compare the two divergent platforms and markets they serve.

As far as what it means for the titles that are cross platform, the pc always has ways of adjusting details due to the wide variety of performance levels that have to be met to serve the base. You can't even max all games that are out now on a 660M, I would bargain you will still be able to configure for a nice playable experience for 2 years with no issue however.

 

It's already been stated that the PS4 will have the 7970M, or something JUUUUST barely slower than that. Even in a laptop configuration, that setup will make mince-meat out of the 660M. In a console configuration, that'll obliterate most desktop enthusiasts.

 

I think also depends on what Xbox brings to the table in terms of hardware. If the xbox brings weaker graphics and a strong developer support that might be an overkill for PS4 hardware.

 

I suppose.. But they won't do that. The entire point with this console is to sell it for profit from the first unit sold. It'll be a desktop card of some sort, and it will have better performance than the kepler cards, obviously. But it will be a system that is considered fairly cheap even if it was put together and sold today. It's also going to be locked, and it is unlikely that the preferences set will favour framerate or HD televisions. That's not where the target market is.

The idea that this is also somehow going to flatten a PC with similar hardware because it's in a "dedicated configuration" is false. It might have been true with a dedicated hardware configuration that required specific tricks to make run well. It might have been true if current processors were so slow that OS, memory footprint, etc., was significant for performance. If saving 20Mb ram was important, that dedicated threads would lower the response on a low clocked system with low bus-speeds (like on the original xbox, which made using a gamepad on a "pc" config actually work at the time) that might have been the case. If it took some doing to program the processor elements optimally, like on the ps2 and the ps3, then that argument would make sense. On the 3DS, or other Mips based chips, it certainly makes sense.

But on a completely normal set of /current/ pc hardware, this doesn't make sense from the beginning. Their system won't be clocked high, or pushed to the edge. And the software will be dedicated only in terms of drm and console-exclusivity. In fact, we've seen too many examples of both MS and Sony choosing to create "multiplatform" programs that drain system resources really quickly, rather than "optimize it for games". See that with the vita, and we see it with the "pc-developed" apps they add for the psn store, etc. Configurations that just eat ram, and run loads of redundant operation, rerun and reload slow graphics operations, redownload from the net rather than cache locally, etc. This is made by (or paid for by) people who only care about making cheap solutions.

The dashboard on the xbox as well is growing comparatively slow to any random PC running on a system that's not memory starved - this just comes as a consequence of that neither company sees value in programming for a dedicated platform, to create that "dedicated gaming platform" they talk so warmly about. They want to be known for creating one. But they're not willing to spend money on either hardware or programmers to actually do it.

So they'll have to rely on people believing it'll work anyway. That people believe they'll save money on buying the console, and that paying inflated prices for games will "save gaming", and make their favourite developers become rich, and so on.

Which is of course what people do believe. The xbox360 proved that. So it's no wonder Sony copies it, specially with the worms they employ nowadays.

Still. The idea that "oh, they'll use direct addressing and cut the execution times in half compared to windows!" is the kind of thing Leadbetter would say on Eurogamer. It's completely ignorant to suggest that will happen nowadays, as many developers have proven beyond any doubt in practice, after being fairly forceful on the idea.

Hardware is on a level now that organised execution schemas have better throughput than "tight" code. But at the same time, that paradigm shift to actually creating hardware to accompany that concept - with programmable processing elements on an integrated bus - never became popular. It wasn't bought, it wasn't talked up at IGN, and it didn't translate into more games sold.

So we're stuck with the "current gen" for another bunch of years, and nothing interesting will happen for a long time because of that.

 

650M will not hold a candle to new consoles. It's upgrading time for me. Got some moolah saved up to get me a 780M - I've been waiting for what seems like forever to finally have a high end system! This year that dream will come true

780M I think will fare favourably to new consoles as well as 680M and 7970M.

 

It will be all down to the drivers in the end. The graphics cards and hardware in the ps4 will be static for probably 5-7yrs and allow nvidia / amd to develop the driver to deliver maximum performance.

Time will tell what Microsoft come up with

Ian

 

Just a few days 21st May we should know

 

re. 780m: Also, twice the power-draw, needs a 150w psu. So arguably, for a portable gaming system, a kepler card is a good idea.

See, it's a kind of a unique situation now. The "old" hardware is starting to have a very wide amount of instruction set support, while very few new things are happening in software development. This is pretty much the opposite of what happened with pixel shader 1.3, or 3dfx before that, etc.

So we end up with a very, very large "middle" when it comes to PC hardware, that can run pretty much all games out there. While the cutting edge isn't actually needed to get reasonably good effects, playable framerate, reasonable resolution, etc.

Or, said in a different way, the "cutting edge" hasn't gone into production yet, because it's too expensive and "inconveniences" developers of AAA titles. Meanwhile, the target for development of games isn't shifted upwards.

What this means is that any indie-developer and any smaller publisher is going to have a massive audience to sell to. Every niche, every tiny little game, will have an audience that easily will sustain the development if planned for well. Prices can be tailored to different plans, profits might be projected differently, studios might set up processes with overlapping development of smaller titles, etc.

While the mainstream console manufacturers will increasingly target a narrower and narrower audience, much in the same way Microsoft has specialized itself into people who buy disc-games, but are always online, have their credit card connected to their login account (so you can buy with a single click, etc), and who actively use their specific social functions.

But that's what console-manufacturers do nowadays. They specialize in "service packages" and PR, not in hardware or development of software. So if you buy consoles because of the games, and hold your nose and accept the drm and locked down interfaces, etc. Then this generation is a good one to skip, specially if you own a lightweight gaming laptop already.

Because there's literally going to be nothing worth playing coming out of either Sony or MS this time around. People tend to think that the console-developers will lead on breaking new ground, and so on. But this isn't going to happen this time. Not Sony, who have finally fired pretty much all of their studios. And not Microsoft, who have gotten rid of all their internal studios long ago.

They're selling PC games with low res this gen, and that's all there is to it. And the only reason this happens is that publishers still are convinced there is value in a system with integrated drm. Even after the xbox360, the most eminently pirateable system in the history of all consoles (even the Dreamcast - cds and cd-writers wasn't actually that easy to come by). Even after that, the value of a "locked down" box is reportedly huge to the larger publishers, such as EA, UBI and Activision.

Of course - they're not going to abandon large parts of the market and only make things for Sony and Microsoft. That'd be suicide. But that's what the consoles are this time around. A cheap side-show for multiplatform deployment.

 

+1

Driver updates often will augment performance as well over time.

 

The PS4 is not a replacement for the 660m-equipped laptop.

The PS4 is nowhere near as portable.


The 660m does a decent job and allows reasonable gaming. Its considerably better than my 9800mGS, and I still use that for gaming (example: Skyrim) when I am out of town.

I wouldn't worry about PS4 as quite frankly, nothing but good things will come from this. Games will be designed from the PC paradigm and thus BOTH PC gaming and console gaming will benefit.


Our only challenge will be moving game developers out of the "all of our gamers are retarded 7-yr-olds and need ultra-easy-cannot-possibly-lose gaming."
(on both sides)

 

I don't think 660m will be 2 years future proof. I think it is almost obsolete at 1080p gaming.. Btw PS4 gpu will be about 2-3 times more powerful.

 

More than willing to bet a 660m owner can game just fine at 1080p for a couple years if they are willing to turn down the details.

I game just fine on a laptop from 5 years ago.

I bet in 2 years the PS4 will be obsolete in comparison to what ships then too.
Both the PS4 and a 660m will be more than capable of playing games.

And for the record, the PS4 will have trouble being 2x as powerful as its AMD CPU will hold it back.

Take a look at the GX60 (AMD A10 cpu and 7970m) the results at stock are around 4800 for 3dmark11.
The Razer Blade with a 660m scores almost 2600.

Synthetic Benchmarks: 3DMark : MSI GX60 Review: Radeon HD 7970M In A $1,200 Notebook!

The PS4 will not be capable of overclocking.

The average 11-yr-old can OC the 660m to around 3k.

Let's be real about performance.

 

You can game just fine on a laptop from 5 years ago, if you play games from 5 years ago, or set to 720p and low detail and find 30fps acceptable for more recent games. The 9800m GS is less powerful than the IGP's today, and they struggle to do just the minimum. Try BF3 multiplayer, Crysis 3, Metro Last Light, Tomb Raider, on your 9800m GS at 1080p and check back with the results.

Not even remotely the same. The PS4 will have 8 independent cores sharing GPU and CPU workload. The A10-4600m is essentially two dual cores fused together sharing an L2 cache.

Both of these comments I agree with.

 

Skyrim plays just fine. (1.5 years ago)
Diablo3 (almost exactly 1 year ago) plays just fine.
Borderlands 2 (not even a year ago) plays just fine.

Most of the above are indeed at 720p and on medium or high.
Then again, that's the size of the screen it comes with and we aren't expecting to play at 120fps on low-enthusiast 5-yr-old hardware.

If Crysis3 at 1080p and everything on at a minimum of 30fps is the determining factor for "obsolete" then everyone with less than a desktop 7950 Boost is obsolete.(that would be every single-GPU laptop period, AND the PS4)

Very High-Detail Benchmarks : Crysis 3 Performance, Benchmarked On 16 Graphics Cards

Hyperbole failed.


-As for "less powerful than IGPs today.... maybe you need to look again.

NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS - NotebookCheck.net Tech

The 9800mGS is still twice as potent as Intel HD4000 and even beats AMD's Integrated and X-fire integrated, which draw closer, but not quite.
The only "integrated" which even comes close to the 9800mGS without X-fire is the future Haswell, and only if rumors of its performance are true.
(then again, if rumors are true, then it will nip on the heels of the 640/650/660m)


-8 independent cores.... kinda like Vishera has 8 independent cores...
I actually hope you are right, as it would be a HUGE leap for AMD and great for competition, but we both know that despite the hype it is likely simply an upgraded, underclocked, 8320.
AMD's 8-core designs do not stack well for gaming and for the most part functions like a slow quad core.
While I agree that the PS4's CPU will be better than the A10, the point was the underclocked 7970m in the PS4 will be quite likely held back by the cpu.

Again, the point was the PS3 will not pump out 3 times the performance of the 660m when paired with an AMD processor.
Unless AMD somehow catches up with Intel processors in a single generation it doesn't even have a chance to reach that level.
Even if they do, an underclocked 7970m paired with an i7 doesn't score over 9k in 3dmark11.

 

i have a question, i heard PS4 is using x86 PC architecture, wont that mean games will also be well optimized for PC when they are designed for PS4? thus reducing the heavy requirements they carry?
Although graphics will improve alot aswell since new generation consoles are coming out but i was wondering if PCs will have more future proofing now considering games are optimized for PC architecture?

 

I hate how people keep comparing consoles with pc. They are completely different platforms so they cannot be compared in any conceivable way.
Also, gtx 660m will be replaced with far better gpu by the time ps4 is out. So why not compare when it's actually out?

 

Look at PS3 and its tiny 256MB DDR3 and 256MB GDDR3 GPU and what they accomplished with it.
Take Crysis 3 for example. Minimum requirements on PC is 2GB DDR3 and atleast 512MB GPU. They still managed to run it on a PS3 and it look really good.

They can code the games to the metal with PS4 and squeeze out much more performance than a PC that runs a OS with programs running in the background. Combine that with the fact that PS4 GPU is a 7860, a tiny weaker than 7970M, which is much faster than a GTX 660M. So yeah, 660M got nothing on the PS4. Unless that AMD CPU is crippling the GPU like it did on the MSI GX60. The PS4 CPU is a 8-core Jaguar but it is a low power CPU (5-25W), so who knows how it will play out.

 

Here's a solution, buy the PS4 and get a gaming laptop or pc. Now you have the best of both worlds.

 

Traditional CPU bottlenecking the GPU might not be valid for PS4 because we are talking about a completely modified system that basically integrated a dedicated GPU to a same board as the CPU.
Plus the system is using GDDR5 as system RAM and Sony claims that latency issues are not a problem (due to the system using only this for everything and the modified design).

In this instance, usual problems of slower CPU bottlenecking the GPU might not apply because this a custom design that eliminates separate components and integrates nearly everything.

Jaguar cores might be 'real cores' and could offer much better opportunity for games using multi-core cpu's. Their 'potency' however is yet to be ascertained as we don't know if the CPU design they are using is closer to Piledriver or Steamroller - I would imagine that since Steamroller is yet to be released, its probably more closer to Piledriver, but with some modifications. I'm not sure how a Jaguar 8 core cpu would compare to say an AMD A10-4600m APU in CPU based performance (single or multi-threaded).
For all we know they might be relatively close in situations that use multi-core approach.

Steamroller/Kaveri should be interesting since its' CPU core design apparently features improvements much closer to those of how Intel does it for single-threaded and multi-threaded performance, while still being focused heavily on parallelism and multitasking.

 

100% agree.

I have all 3 right now. Just waiting to replace the ps3 with a ps4. I enjoy each of them equally, I just tend to game more on my notebook lately due to my wife either watching tv or playing skyrim on the Xbox.

 

tbh you guys should just get the atari and play some enduro, when you reach the last phase call me maybe

its a 7970m *** **** ****, how much more powerful is it compared to the 660m? get that as a base and move on.

 

That was never the the comment 120FPS. Just that many newer titles are largely unplayable. Crysis 3, Battlefield 3, Metro Last Light, Far Cry 3, Hitman, Resident Evil 6

LOL. The weakest card in that roundup is a 7950, and a desktop card, all at least 4x the performance of the 9800m GS. And again, I never said 1080p, but 30fps is really about minimum for something to be playable. Anything less starts to be a slide show.

Run these benchmarks and report back for comparison: http://forum.notebookreview.com/gam...g-benchmarked-various-ram-configurations.html