The new gen consoles

So with the next gen consoles coming out soon, is it now a bad idea to buy the latest notebook? Because if you buy now it would not have the advantage much with future games for these next gen consoles that are ported to the PC?

 

Well, since the new consoles have 8-core CPU's, there's even more of a reason to buy an i7 these days, since games will now start to use 8 threads

Can't wait for pure 8core Ivy-Bridge-E Extreme Edition on the desktop

 

What about the GPU? Is there currently a notebook GPU that can match the one that is in the XBox one or PS 4?

 

Something really close to 7970m or desktop 7850/7870.

 

Yes. The PS4 (the more powerful of the new consoles) uses a slightly cut down version of the AMD Radeon 7970M. The PS4 has 18 'compute units' at 800MHz, while the laptop card has 20 clocked higher at 850MHz. Xbox meanwhile, uses 12 compute units, clocked at 850MHz.

These are the 4 currently available laptop GPUs that beat the PS4 in terms of processing power:

Microsoft Xbox One = 1.310 TFLOPS
Sony PlayStation 4 = 1.840 TFLOPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M = 1.935 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon HD 7970M = 2.176 TFLOPS
AMD Radeon HD 8970M = 2.304 TFLOPS
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M = 2.528 TFLOPS

Of course, laptop GPUs have the ability to be overclocked for additional performance.

The question whether this additional raw performance will be enough to offset the PS4's advantage in OS/API customisations/optimisations remains to be seen. Still, I believe that any laptop equipped with any of these 4 top end mobile GPUs will be more than able to match the visuals seen on the new consoles.

 

Do you do simple research. The GPU in at least one of the consoles is based off the 7970M. So yeah the tech has been out since april 2012 for laptops.

 

Great post! Thanks for posting and shedding some light on this topic. I'm really hoping you're right and I don't have to upgrade my laptop to match the next-gen consoles.

 

I just got a new computer so I am going to make a statement that could mean my decision was a bad one (I don't think it was but who knows). The real question isn't whether it will play the ps4 games at similar settings at launch...but what about games 4 years from now? What are the chances Nvidia or AMD will still even be supporting our drivers? I mean they are in business to make money and sell new video cards right? With how fast new technology comes from the PC front, these cards we have will be very ancient in only a matter of years; that's the nature of the beast.

HOWEVER, the question is, can you play the PS4 port, at the same "settings" that is equivalent to the consoles...and that may be possible. Most console games will be making sacrifices and will not be playing anywhere near the potential of a PC.

 

Just a note Cakefish, those GTX 680M numbers you posted are for the GTX 680MX. But this makes me sad, my GTX 675M is actually weaker than the X1 and PS4. And considering, games will always run better on console as far as getting the most out of the GPU (better optimization on static platforms). At least there is looking forward to all 8 of my threads on my i7 being useful.

 

I understand the XB1 will run Directx 11.2. Windows 8.1 will be directx 11.2 and it appears to be supported on current GPUs.

The consoles only need to support 1920x1080, where as computer GPUs need to support higher res displays or multi-monitor.

Nvidia is very good at supporting older hardware...

End random comments.

 

While I do not know about nVidia, I believe AMD will continue to support their old hardware with driver releases since the GPUs in the console are from the same generation as the mobile AMD cards right now. As more and more games start getting optimized for the AMD GPUs, AMD will most likely accommodate the optimizations into their drivers and maintain support.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk 2

 

OK to put better perspective for you. In 2005 the 360 launched and the best mobile GPU AFTER the 360 launched was the 7900GTX found in the Dell XPS 1710. Now ask yourself if that could play Crysis 3 at settings comparable to the ps3/360. Now sure, the new gpus in the consoles aren't as advanced and porting may be easier. However this is still something to consider. So I am sure you can find drivers for the 7900gtx but the question is can you play games from 2012/2013? I'd say no way. It definitely didn't run Crysis from 2007. I'd say a dual GPU setup of 680/780/7970/8970 will play games at similar settings to the PS4 for the majority of it's reign but most of us will upgrade within 3 years anyway.

Dell XPS M1710 Review - Laptops - CNET Reviews

 

A 7900GTX mobile card is weaker than the Xbox 360 though. My 280M (2007 desktop tech, though slightly refined) plays pretty much any game ever at 720p resolutions while over 30 fps in almost every case. The Xbox 360 plays games at something like 1060 x 620 or something resolution (I can never remember it offhand, but it's 10xx by 6xx) and upscaled to 720p or 1080p using a chip installed into it. The PS3 I believe basically runs at 720p, but CAN play a few first party games at 1080p... though the number could probably be counted on one hand alone.

The Xbox 1 runs games at 1600 x 900 and upscales to 1920 x 1080 like the Xbox 360 did to 720p. The PS4.. I am not sure of. I believe it most likely will run most games at 1080p, being stronger than the Xbox 1 by some margin, but very demanding or unoptimized games/engines (Cryengine/Crysis games, Frostbite 2-3/Battlefield games, Arma 2/3-type games, etc) will likely run 1600 x 900 and be upscaled to 1080p, mainly to keep decent visuals while maintaining 60fps in 90% of the game's playtime. You do NOT need a dual GPU setup to get similar 1080p performance to systems who are designed for 1080p/900p at combination of current PC games' medium-high settings (depending on the game). A 7970M and a good ivy bridge or haswell i7 CPU will perform about the same as the PS4 will in its entire life cycle; assuming the bonus power the 7970M has is negated by the fact that the consoles get a "boost" to their graphical capabilities due to having standardized hardware, so games can be further optimized for them. Of course, this means that overclocking a 7970M will break this barrier. And in addition to this, the 680M, 8970M and 780M which are all stronger by varying degrees and overclock potentials to the 7970M will outpace the new consoles with ease.

With all of the above taken into consideration, the dual setups of these cards will essentially be more than enough for anything the new consoles will ever be able to produce. nVidia keeps their drivers working well even for older hardware like my 280M and AMD as far as I know keeps new drivers coming out for cards as old as a 5650 that a friend of mine owns. My other friend has a 4890 that still works and I'll assume still has decent enough drivers. So I don't think driver availability is a concern.

Finally, with regards to your post about can you play games from X era, yes. Yes you can. However lots of games on PC which have moved to Direct X 11 and such cannot be counted, as they are not of the same standard as games that are made for a console. DX9 type games like Mortal Kombat 9 which came out a month or so ago for PC work well on my 280M at even 1200p at medium-high settings and looks better than its PS3/Xbox 360 counterparts. But if I ran it on 720p with an 8800 or something similar, it'd work perfectly fine. Great, even. So yes, when we have cards of this strength, we will more than be able to get at LEAST console-level 1080p visuals on our PCs all through the life of the new consoles, unless Direct X12 or something is released and these cards cannot support it and games instantly shift to that; which I don't think is so likely to happen.

 

Any mid grade or newer GPU (i.e. released in 2013) will run newer console games perfectly fine. Consoles do have the benefit of coding for one specific set of hardware though, but since it's more or less PC hardware there's no reason it shouldn't perform well on any modern GPU/CPU combo other than a crappy port. Also remember that the game consoles are coded for 720p or 900p and not 1080p, and also their level of detail usually don't match a PC's "Ultra" detail setting it's usually somewhere between medium to high, and as time progresses, mid grade GPU's in a couple years will look and perform a LOT better than the game consoles.

Although I kind of am disappointed in the decision to use such "low end" hardware in the consoles. I'd much rather see it pushing the envelope which in turn would force PC hardware to push the envelope. Plus if they plan on these consoles to last beyond 5 years they will be in a world of hurt as 4k screens start to become fairly readily available in a few years. scaling 720p to a 4k screen just won't look quite right. It'd be like running a 640x480 game of yesteryear on a current 1366x768 display. It just will look awful.

 

A reminder that the new gen consoles will have relatively weak CPU matched with much more powerful GPUs.

Even with 8 cores, Jaguar cores are more closely related to Atom or ARM than an i7.
They have a low clock rate AND a low amount of work being done per clock cycle.
The Jaguar is a power-saving chip, not a performance chip.

AnandTech | The AMD Kabini Review: A4-5000 APU Tested

The review above is a 4-core Kabini... the Xbox 180 and PS4 will have twice that... but even doubling the CPU power (it won't actually double as there will be overhead) it won't even add up to a 2-core Ultra low frequency i7.

The result will be similar to the MSI GX60 laptop.

 

Spoiler

Ahem, edited post, thanks for pointing that out

 

The new consoles were always planned to be low end. You CANNOT make high end, cool, multipurpose hardware WITH peripherals for a $400-500 price point. It's why you still can't build a decent gaming PC for $500 that'll play everything at 1080p 60fps, despite PCs being cheaper for the most part. They hyped everyone up making everyone think that new stuff is going to be high end PCs but it isn't. And they're trying to do all kinds of tricks to make people think they are. The consoles of this strength should have come out in 2010 or 2011. Unlike the PS3 and Xbox 360, where MS and Sony had enough money to make $1000+ consoles and sell them for half price or less, they don't seem to be able to do such a thing again. So... yeah.

On the plus side, the games being optimized for multiple cores and PC-esque hardware means we'll get a LOT of optimization coming out.

 

A $500 PC would be made of independent parts. And MS and Sony would have everything embedded in a single PCB, plus the advantage of mass volume to make it cheap cheap. Sony already has their own manufacturing facilities also, where MS does not, so Sony should be able to do it even cheaper yet.

They could amortize the consoles over several years based on game and peripheral sales to make up the difference. They just chose not to for whatever reason. Xbox 360 had payback after a year or so. PS4 took nearly 3 because they wanted to get Blu-Ray as standardized in the marketplace.

And even though the new consoles are based on PC hardware I wouldn't put my hat on there being much PC optimization. IMHO it will be worse because they will see it as "good enough" and throw it out the door to the PC crowd.

And to be honest with the hardware so similar between the two consoles, I wouldn't' expect any exclusives except for those developed by MS and Sony themselves. Otherwise they'd lose the sales of the other console which is pretty much split 50/50.

 

Since the consoles are x86 based, i wonder if anyone will be able to crack the OS fast enough to start working on being able to emulate/crossport the games to PC. That would be awesome, especially for those console-only games (halo comes to mind).

 

Sounds like a challenge

AMD Athlon II X4 750K, PowerColor Radeon HD 7850, Raidmax Tornado (Black/Red) - System Build - PCPartPicker

Right there is roughly the PS4 minus a controller for under $600... and its a full PC and a Retail Win 7 license and great cooling which will allow for an overclock.

If you own windows 7 already, or can buy an educational license, or are willing to use *nix subtract $60-100.

While you can nitpick... the price difference is small period.

 

Should have followed my mind and said "almost can't" instead of "can't" XD. But you need peripherals and more than 4GB of RAM. I'd say at least 6 but I'd rather it be 8. The rest of the stuff is perfectly fine. Can't underpower anything. But I wasn't really making it a challenge, I was just saying for them to build true high end PCs and sell it at a $400 price point... nope. And no, we'd need to buy the OS because PS4 comes with one, essentially.

 

Does this confirm that the 680m is noticeably worse than the 7970m? Especially if those numbers are for the 680mx? I know the 7970m plays BF3 considerably better than the 680m, even with higher settings. I'm starting to feel like I made a bad decision swapping my 7970m for a 680m...

 

At the risk of derailing the thread, here is a 7970M comparison to the 680M.

Review Update: Radeon HD 7970M vs. GeForce GTX 680M - NotebookCheck.net Reviews

--- Edit

OK, here is another. http://gaminglaptophome.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-680m-vs-radeon-7970m-comparison/

 

Yeah I've seen that comparison before and have come to the conclusion that notebookcheck can be pretty inaccurate most of the time. If anyone else could chime in with their thoughts that'd be great, otherwise back on topic!

 

If I remember correctly, the two are basically neck and neck in games. Some work better on nvidia, some on AMD. End of the day, though, the 680M oc's WAY higher than a 7970M can, if I remember correctly. If you're running at stock, it has a lot of its potential very seriously cut, unlike the 7970M. That's the gist of these forums over the last few months I've gotten from reading, down to the point that a 680M can ballpark into 780M OC figures quite easily

If you want stock cards, 780M --> 8970M --> 7970M --> 680M (raw power).
OCable cards, 780M --> 680M --> 8970M --> 7970M (raw power)
nVidia drivers are generally more stable and have fewer issues than AMD cards, especially if enduro is present. I CANNOT say how it feels myself, but many here will tell you as such, as likely as many will also say they've had no issues since their most recent driver updates.

Decide their worth how you want. Remember AMD is cheaper, has great stock power at its power draw (780M will chug on 180W PSUs unless it is MSI), is FAR better at OpenCL calculations (I think it's OpenCL), but worse driver and feature support, especially Enduro/CrossfireX. nVidia is better with features and inclusive of PhysX and CUDA support, can get 3D vision on laptops with Clevo, OC a lot better, have better driver support, better SLI/Optimus support, but more expensive, generally drain a bit more power (at least 780M-wise), perform worse in OpenCL calculations and has terrible stock clocks for the 680M.

 

The 680M is much more powerful than the 7970M it doesn't need to be pushed to comparable 7970M clockspeeds to win. For example Someone with M15x like me and 680M at 900/1000mhz on the 680M drew level with my 7970M is 3dmark11 at 1000/1500mhz. I had 33% more memory bandwidth but the 680M could still draw level! Until I saw this the other day I didn't realize just how much more powerful the 680M is if memory bandwidth is set to be the same as the 7970M!

 

Actually, according to the memory bandwidth of the 7970M as listed by the website of one of the reviewers, the 7970M's 1200MHz was its BASE clock; I.E. in actuality it's about 2400MHz versus the 1800MHz of the 680M. So if the 680M is better than the 7970M with less memory bandwidth, the 7970M just isn't really that efficient a card I guess. I can only calculate nVidia architectures, not AMD, so I can't do multipliers for core * clock * hotclock to see a general reference-able figure to compare the two, like I can do among varying architectures for the nVidia family.

 

These numbers are for 680M not 680MX. Once he pointed out my mistake, I edited my post

 

As far as current laptop owners go, only those with GTX 780M, 680M, or AMD 7970M/8970M should feel slightly comfortable about playing next-gen ports.

If my Clevo wasn't falling apart I would've held out for the GTX 880M.

 

You worked that lappy to the bone didn't ya? It's okay. I did with mine too T-T.

 

Nah... we've seen how badly a lower-end processor handicaps GPUs.
The GX60 is a perfect example. The 7970m in it runs at only 2/3rds of its capacity on a large variety of games.

While the 8-core jaguar will likely be slightly better than the A10, it still won't outrun even a 2-core ultra low voltage i7.

We also have to remember that the Xbox 180 is a significantly weaker GPU. Any multi-console release will have to accommodate the weaker console.

 

That ought to be circumvented by it running games at 1600 x 900 and upscaling though. I've been able to get 60fps almost constant maxed out at 1600 x 900 and only ~45 at 1920 x 1200. If PS4 does its own at 1080p proper, the optimization could be the same, just for the different resolutions.

 

You guys are giving console hardware and the whole fixed-hardware-platform, coding-to-the-metal optimization stuff way too much credit. BF4 was most recently seen running at 720p, Medium settings, 60 FPS on the PS4. That may (probably will) change before launch but this does not bode well at all for the so-called "next-gen" consoles, and the PS4 is supposed to be the more powerful of the two. The Xbox One and PS4 were supposed to finally usher in the era of native 1080p, 60 FPS gameplay on the consoles that PC gamers have been enjoying since this current console generation was in its infancy. But the fact that a launch title is already going to run at less than 1080p is troubling enough.

 

Yeah but let's not forget that BF4 is one of those games that will also release on the older consoles aswell, I understand that they want to keep on supporting the older consoles, I do not understand why they would waterdown/dumbdown the first next gen games by porting them over to the older hardware, aren't they supposed to wow us? anyways we can safely say they won't start using the new consoles potential until they stop doing this, and I am pretty sure we will see this trend for about a year, so if the hardware you are actually running on your PC runs games fine chances are it will keep on doing so for a while (I am not talking about highend gpu's here, I am talking about the mid tier gpu's even those of yesteryear and before), I personally do not see the point of upgrading at this point, I am going to hold out until Maxwell and it's AMD equivalent (not even sure you would need the top high end GPU at that point, the runner up should be just fine) .

 

If they drop resolution to 600p/720p and reduce detail for the current gen consoles then there's no compromise really, as long as it's scalable. Xbox 360 will continue to be sold for the next few years at same time as the Xbox One, and will get another redesign to boot: Microsoft confirms it will keep selling the Xbox 360 until 2016 | Games | Geek.com

So it will be all about scalability.

 

There is one XONE game running in native 1920x1080 @ 60FPS and that's Forza 5. I preordered both the PS4 and XONE just for Forza 5 but I don't think we'll see the massive jump in graphics that we've been promised.

 

Not yet. Xbox 1 hasn't gotten 1080p working properly yet. Not saying it'll be impossible, but I believe they're mostly aiming for 1600 x 900 60fps games.

 

Forza Motorsport 5 will be 60FPS and run at 1080p | VG247

"“I believe we’re uniquely positioned to deliver on that challenge. We’re a huge epic game that’s going to be running at 1080p, 60fps on the next-gen console, so it’s an incredible opportunity on one hand, but you have to be incredibly flexible and agile and self-aware on the other hand,” content director John Wendel told Gamespot.

This is Turn 10′s decision; Gamespot reported a quote from Microsoft’s Phil Spencer, published in Edge, in which the executive noted that the platform holder is not insisting all developers upgrade to true HD"

 

The console isn't out yet, right? What I'm saying is that AS OF RIGHT NOW the console has not been able to get 1080p working. As in Microsoft. As in this can change before release of the console in ~2 months. Hell, PS4 apparently is still stuck at 720p. And that's the better system; no idea how they haven't at least gotten to 900p as yet.

 

It's not very likely that they're going to make that kind of change within two months. Resolution is one of the single most important factors on taking up graphics processing. To make that kind of jump they need to take a lot into account with how much their gpu's are processing.

 

At this point the hardware is locked. They have to be done with the silicon design and starting to crank out parts now or within the next couple of weeks to stock up enough inventory for launch day. The only thing they can fuss with is software/firmware that will be part of the "Day one update" that will be required for both consoles I believe.

 

It's like one of those touching christmas stories

 

But he would have to work twice as long before the Steam machine comes out.

 

This is an excellent summary and should be stickied, IMO.

The short answer is a laptop with an i7 and a 7970m or 680m at stock will be about the equivalent to a PS4. The long answer is you should consider the following:

- PC has an absolutely huge library of games that dwarfs PS4 or XBox One's -- this will always be true. If you are going to only have one platform, PC is it.
- Are there particular exclusives that you like on either PS4 or XBox? I prefer PS titles (GoW, Uncharted, Resistance) and find some of the XBox "exlusives" end up on PC anyways.
- Up-front cost. There's no getting around the fact a PS4 is only $400 compared to $1200+ for an equivalent laptop. The lower cost of games on PC may somewhat equalize cost in the long-run, but still that's a lot of extra moola

 

Not quite right...

Try the GX60 a10 + 7970m combo.

The i7/7970m is actually significantly more powerful CPU-wise.

 

Filthy console peasants.

I will stick to my (soon SLI) OC'd 750M for gaming.

All hail lord GabeN!

 

Hey don't be a hater. And you wonder why they call us snobbish and elitist...

 

Did you notice anything that can skew that comparison the wrong way?

Hint: "Processing power" =/= Gaming performance
Hint: Look at 7970M and GTX 680M

7970M isn`t 13% faster than 680M as far as I know


According to multiple PS4 developers, the PS4 is capable of rumbling with the highest performing gaming computers today, thanks to the architecture optimizations they have on the PS4 vs PC. Not sure if that is marketing BS. I think you are right and they are wrong. PC (and gaming notebooks) will beat PS4 in gaming performance.

 

I wonder if you can run a PC benchmark on the consoles?