future proof ?970m 3gb or ps4?

I was talking to a friend who works as an artist for one of the publishers and he mentioned one thing about performance of the consoles. Programers still dont know how to properly use them, how to properly optimize everything for new consoles as its drastic change. Biggest issue they get is with properly coding stuff for a full paralelization which is the key when you have 8c cpu. They had 6-8 years with last set of consoles and now architecture is changed dramaticaly and it takes time to adapt which they all know they dont have. Most of people are still set in "old console mindset" while ceo's and various project leaders require games to look at their pc counterparts which is imposible due to power and computional difference. In time ps4 and xb1 will get to 1080p but people will have to wait...

 

PS4 and Xbox 1 will never reliably get to 1080p at any kind of current graphical fidelity. If they want 1080p they'll have to tone things down a bit. What they're TRYING to do is make comparable current-gen PC-level "high" graphics on the new consoles. Problem is their relative power, which I described above. They barely hit current gen gaming grade chips in power. The Xbox 1 doesn't at all. When you aim for that level of graphical fidelity on weak machines, you end up having to drop resolution and framerate. Then to make matters worse, their CPU is weaksauce too. An 8-core netbook CPU at low speeds is FAR weaker than a consumer-level quadcore at high speeds.

You can only stretch a machine so far. And the whole "well we don't know how to code for this architecture well yet" is really dumb, since EVERYBODY sang its praises when it was so similar to PC architecture. To make matters worse, they then proceeded to claim that all their launch and future games would be 1080p 60fps, which is not possible at the graphical level they've chosen. So... yeah. Problems rampant. But on the flip side, the graphical fidelity they ARE getting on the new consoles, especially the 1080p 30/60 games, is a testament to what could happen if people actually optimized for PC stuff. If a 1080p/60fps Xbox 1 title exists, then that could be done on a PC with a 650Ti, probably at higher settings. If it's done on a PS4, then a 660Ti could work, and a single 680 or 780 could easily pump out Ultra settings for it. Closed architecture only grants about 10% performance boost too over open architecture too (I.E. coding for a locked platform versus a variable one), so if equivalent PC hardware gets say... 40FPS (and I mean EQUIVALENT), then Xbox 1 should get about 44fps at the same settings and resolution. It's not a big enough boost to write home about, and further proves to fact that the consoles are actually getting TONS of optimization done for them to run games at the graphics and resolution they are using, and PC is also getting a bit screwed with how much it takes from a PC to provide similar results in MOST games (not all).

 

Wow I didn't realize the XO uses basically a 7870M LOL. Weak sauce indeed!

 

The XB1 GPU (Durango) is not a Pitcairn chip like the others. It's a Bonaire (7790) chip with 2 CU's disabled, so half the ROP's in addition to fewer shaders and TMU's compared to Pitcairn. The closest mobile GPU comparison to Durango is the FirePro M6100, which is the only Bonaire GPU inside notebooks. What's interesting is that Durango uses 256-bit DDR3 instead of 128-bit GDDR5 like Bonaire normally does.

 

That's interesting; all the documentation I could find stated X1 was also a cut down 7970M. I'll have to go hunting again.

 

You can just look on Wikipedia.

7790 / R7 260X (full Bonaire)

Durango / R7 260 / FirePro M6100 (cut down Bonaire)

 

It appears to be a downclocked R7 260 then. The core/ROP/TMU etc counts match perfectly. Interesting. All the tech spec websites prior to and at time of release called it a cut down 7970M, and the R7 260 wasn't out at the time. Oh well. Might as well have people compare the 85% in downclock (850MHz versus 1000MHz) and use those as benchmarks. That's a lot easier for me. 72% of 7870 = PS4, 85% of R7 260 = Xbox 1.

 

Well you can't spell peasants without PS. Maybe we should calling them PSeants from now on.

 

PSants who get xBONE'd!

 

Bottleneck because of the crappy 1.6GHz tablet CPU, good thing is that it should force developers to use the cores better and would have also and impact on pc

 

It was a cutted down 7950 gt

 

Or 7800 GTX 512, or 7900 GT, or 7900 GTO, or 7900 GTX...

Point is, the name is irrelevant. They're all the same GPU at the core with slight differences in spec. Calling the 7970M an 8970M or R9 M290X doesn't make it not a 7970M still.

 

If you keep playing at the same graphical fidelity levels (like consoles do), your pc will last a long time without upgrading. That is to say, ultra settings 1080p 60fps on a 980m now will be maybe mid-high settings 1080p on a 980m in 2016...

... And it will still look better than on consoles.

Sent from my Nexus 7 FHD

 

I'd get a 970M over a PS4/XBox One anytime.. Just make sure you get a MXM laptop and not a soldered GPU laptop

 

That being said i can safely say that all modern games are playable in fhd if you dont crank details to ultra, use aa and cut down on shadows. Detail settings i was forced to use so i dont get under 30fps in metro LL was mostly on high. Not to mention i played game on my 40" tv so i dont see a reason why dont developers mess around ingame detail settings to make console games playable on fhd.

You dont play consoles 50cm from the tv you play them from 1-2 meters sitting on a couch or something and ultra aa details, altho look nice and crisp, are not needed. still looks nice even if you step down on details. I mean ps3 x360 run games in hd with lowest of the settings that are availible to pc and some of the latest titles, considering the hw, look nice. New consoles offer at least quadrouple performance and developers should spend some more time fine tweaking games to properly use it.

30fps thing they try to sell us is just pr stunt due to lazyness and 8c amd fx albeit low clocked should have enough juice to fluidly run multicore codded games, wheter it is combined with 7870 or cut down version in xb1.

Just because gaming pc has ability to have 10 times more power dosent mean nothing
Take a look at how "weak" hardware most people use and you will see that consoles have way more power than avarage gamer has in his pc.

And to the OP regarding console or gpu upgrade: get the one that will let you play games you like. PC and consoles have a very different approach to gaming. Even a maxxed out aw18 wont keep a smile on your face if you are used to console games and all the games you want to play are not availible on your platform. I myself am a pc gamer but my brother in law cant stand sitting on a chair and smashing keyboard. He prefers his wii and xb360 and couch and controlers. To him new consoles have superb graphics regardless of how pc games look on my desktop and laptop. Yes looks better on pc and he's not denying it but he could never game on pc.

 

Just buy him a low budget laptop with 840m, $10 HDMI cable and Logitech wireless gamepad: Bam! now he has an Xbox One...

 

True, is the same chip, but frecuencies are not the same

840m is much worse that Xbox One, Xbox One is like a 850m ddr3

 

I'm a strictly pc gamer, so I'd go with the 970m