Upcoming GPU Info Thread - 6xxM / 7xxxM Discussions!

7850 is more appropriate if they want to repeat last gen power consumption for their boxes. It sits right around 100W.

 

I figure the major next generation consoles will not be "super machines" that the 360 and ps3 were.

Engine developers are starting to look at the future, where content will have to be sold not only on the console, but the PC, Tablets, Phones.. Etc. With this, they are starting to pull back the hardware requirements for their platforms.

Next gen platforms will probably get a modest bump to mid-level PC hardware equivalents this go around. To save cost, be easy for cross-platform development and because engine developers just wont demand a lot of hardware.

We are reaching a point where "good enough, is good enough".

Now.. one of the console companies might decide they need to pull a rabbit out of the hat and release a "super machine" that will run a game based on "Samaritan" level graphics.. But i just don't see them putting $800 worth of hardware in a console they have to sell for $299 or less.

 

They won't use a 7850, that's far too high end, and it's not 100w no matter what you people seem to think.

 

It wouldn't be a 7850 directly, no. By the time they come out, the 8000 and 700 series will likely be on the market and it will be some sort of hybrid architecture I'd imagine, with equivalent performance.

 

This is speculation obviously, but Notebookcheck has a little more info for us to chew on.

Check this out too. Four new cards using the GCN architecture on 28nm (Click on the picture and scroll to the bottom.)

Also note, the 7970M is using 65W TDP. At 28nm that is an overclocking monster!

 

The info is inaccurate at best. With 1536 shaders and those clocks, the 7970M would beat the HD 7870 at a fraction of its TDP, lol. Nah, I think things will be more realistic when the launch time comes. One thing we have to remember, AMD likes to declare the TDP of the core only not the entire board with the memory chips. So, the actual numbers may easily be in 80-90s range.

 

If I was to get a 670m, would I be able to play games for the next 4 years? I don't mind going down to the lowest of the low settings, but I would like games to be at native res (1080p) and be playable (>30 fps).

I know that no-one can predict the future, but I do feel as if I've been caught up in the "oooo, new, shiny!" crowd and have forgotten that I only want to play games, and I don't need them to be shiny (I mainly play SC2+LoL, and only forsee HoTS/LotV (this will probably come out in 2020 though )/Diablo 3 in my future). I could wait until the 7970m comes out, but from what I've managed to gather from this thread it only comes out in June or so, which I would find hard to justify waiting for if a 670m could play games for 4 years.

Looks like I've rambled for too long -.-........

TL;DR: Best guess on whether a 670m play stuff in 4 years? Can your 4 year old card play stuff right now at 1080p, even at lowest settings?

 

I honestly hope they don't gimp next years console announcements with such underwhelming GPUs, and I don't think they will. It would be foolish to launch a next generation console with a two-generation old piece of hardware as the frontrunner for performance.

As consoles have typically bordered the upper echelon of current graphics technology when they are launched, I honestly take all of these articles with a heaping pile of salt. Honestly, Sony and Microsoft couldn't be this naive, could they?

 

You have to remember that these are using 28nm dies, nearly half the size of of the previous generation. That means more real estate on the chip not to mention less power. This is why Ivy Bridge is able to use less power and achieve higher frequencies using the same architecture.

Could those numbers be exaggerate? Most likely.

Are those numbers impossible? No.

 

There is no generational/architecture or lithographical difference between the 7870 and the 7970m............. with a 65W TDP and that amount of shaders, it's hardly credible, the 7870 has only 1280 shaders, so what would the 7970m be based on.

 

1536 shaders @ 800MHz @ 65-70W is flat out impossible.

Plus there's the fact that no card with 1536 shaders exists, and that it being a cut down 7950 is even less likely.

In 4 years, the 670M will not be able to play the games of that day at 1080p, regardless of what settings you choose.

 

Look how good the games on PS3/360 look right now, and look how old the consoles are, the internals don't need to be top notch or upper echelon, it's not feasible in terms of cost, the PS3 was $600 at launch, and it sold poorly, Sony won't be making the same mistake twice, the 7670 is completely probable/feasible, but they could possibly move up to a 7770.

 

I would say that PS3 and 360 games look okay at best. I'm having an increasingly difficult time buying anything for consoles when it is also available on PC, except for the odd multiplayer game that my friends will also be playing on Live.

I do completely agree with you, though, that times are different and top-of-the-line GPUs aren't going to see themselves in the next generation consoles. That being said, however, I find it hard to believe that Sony would make the decision to put a piece of hardware in their machine that is already a year old. By the time of launch, the GPU could already be 2 and a half years old, or even three and a half if the 2014 holiday launch timeline holds true. This undoubtedly will not hold well in the face of next generation graphics engines, and certainly won't boast resolutions at native 1080p at even 30 frames.

Alas I am just a lowly forum poster, however, and have no place in the design decisions of a company like Sony. I am sure they know what they are doing, I mean, they finally decided to scrap the development burden of the cell this time around, so they have to be making some proper decisions, right?

 

Well, Nether's point is that the consoles are quite old and can still achieve good graphics. They are 5 year old systems and I think they've aged well. I think okay at best is a little harsh given the circumstances. I have a 5 year old pc near top of the line specs that is pretty much running newer games at 960x600 at low/med settings, just to put things in perspective.

Putting on my swami hat, I'd say next gen will see 2 distinct tiers of consoles. Premium systems will play the full catalog and probably have near top of the line GPUs - something with a still reasonable price/performance ratio. "Core" or "Lite" systems will focus on online services (cable tv, hulu, netflix, etc.), download marketplace games, and retro titles. They can still put consoles in everyone's hands and don't have to worry about alienating people with a high price point.

 

this for the EM series....shouldnt be too long now anymore! altho mythlogic corrected the 680M to a 660M support in that particular BIOS still good tho!

cheers

 

I would like to add to Kevins post that in 4 year there is probably going to be new high-resolution standard much higher than current Full HD 1080P. Lets say 1440P and this means new market for notebook GPUs for next years Dont you guys agree?

 

Try with three, 1080p to say the least, I can imagine spatial anti-aliasing being the thing without a possible way to turn off, most gaming GPU's are cranking it up all the way now a days The 670M wouldn't be worth a penny in three years..

 

Yes, manufacturers are going to go to "retina" notebook displays, most likely on the heels of Apple. Playing at native resolution will drive the need for effects down (AA, AF) as edges and individual details will become harder for the eye to resolve.

 

Well hopefully notebook display technology will also have improved, to the point where gaming below native resolution no longer deals such a heavy blow to image quality.

 

If the higher rez is chosen carefully then just 1/2 in each direction will result in a four fold decrease in the number of pixels that need to be rendered while still providing a easy and clean increase to the panel rez that shouldn't have much quality drop. The main problem right now is that the rez isn't high enough on the panel to do this and we're forced into 3/4 or some other awkward number.

 

3840x2160 vs 1920x1080, 2x each direction, you can scale down to 1080 real easily, no fuzziness because it's a direct scale down. AA/AF won't be necessary with PPI that high, but video cards right now won't be able to handle 3840x2160 on high detail settings right now.

 

You got a point there that's why the iPad apps looks good on the new retina iPad because the resolution is double but screen tech in laptops have never improved sadly we still using old display tech

 

if there is 3840*2160 screen, no any graphic card can direct output 3840*2160......

for exp gtx680 spec:
2560x1600 Maximum Digital Resolution
2048x1536 Maximum VGA Resolution

so there will be a big evolution of gfx card

 

NVIDIA GeForce | Facebook

New announcement coming. Bit of a long shot but might be the 680m.

 

It looks like a desktop card tbh. Far too big for a laptop card imo. Possibly a GTX 685, 4gb GTX 680 or a GTX 690 (dual core, 1 card)? It looks like a GTX 480.

 

The only reason that the iPad's screen is better is because of pixel density.

The iPad 3s screen is actually a laptop display made by Samsung using amorphous silicon as opposed Low Temperature Poly Silicon (LTPS) used in most tablets and phones.

The screen on the iPad is only a 66% color gamut while the standard 15" screen is 75% and we can upgrade to 95%. The iPad cannot.

I would choose color gamut over pixel density any day.

 

It will most likely be a 690 or 670

 

the most possible is gtx670ti, gtx680 trimmed down version
and theres two et head on the picture?? so maybe its just a alienware desktop accessory? component?

 

Has there been any release date idea for the 7970m?

 

Not as such, no, but I'd kind of expect news one way or the other Monday when Intel officially launches Ivy.

There's been talk in the Alienware speculation thread that we'll see something Monday, and the new m17x and m18x have been rumored to have 7970M as an option, IIRC.

But whether that's a release or just an announcement is anyone's guess.

 

Display of the new ipad is the superior by far compared to any TN screen available to any laptop. Difference is night and day! seriously...

 

No, but May is the safe bet.

 

How exactly is it a safe bet if I may ask.

I'm confused

 

You are intelligent enough to pick up on why light release date speculation and concrete technical comparisons are light years apart from each other.

 

Just FYI for those with HM Laptops.

The 670m and 675m besides that it says "Empty" in the BIOS, and you'll need to turn to us for driver support.


Come and get'em

We'll have at least the 675m's up for purchase tomorrow.

They work on the P150HM, P170HM, and P170HM3 (The 3D won't work properly as the cards aren't 3D "Certified)

You will need the latest BIOS/EC for these laptops.

 

u mean they work fine on our HM without a problem?what about the price of 675m????

 

To be precise the 3D won't work at all... :'(

But looking at the upcoming GTX680M...I guess we should do something about that, shall we?

He he he

 

Dell's UK website has the AW M17x-R4 up. The 7970M option is £50 more than the 675M, so you can bet it's kickass.

 

I am considering (like 99% sure) an P170EM + 3820QM + 7970M + 16GB 1733Mhz. Hopefully in may (whenever the parts come out). Cash is ready.

Problem is - for how much do I sell my P150HM?

 

You mean 1833Mhz right? Not 1733Mhz

I would rather choose to leave that to your imagination.

Light years or not, it surely depends on what kind of leaks there are. Surely there is a reason that the 7970M is £50 more that the 675M. I'll just leave this here, but I follow you alright.

 

$150 cheaper in the US.

 

7970M option is not available any more, sadly...

 

Still available in the US store.

 

Help Me Choose: Video Cards | Dell

Found the specs for the 7970. According to this, the 7970M has 1280 shaders and is 100W. Click on the compare side by side tab of that link and scroll down for the info.

100W
1280 Shaders
850 Mhz Core Clock
1200 Mhz Memory Clock
256 bit Memory Bus
153.6 GB/s Memory Bandwidth

 

I'll post same thing I did in other thread:

That sounds reasonable. For comparison, 6990M is 1120 Stream processors at 715 MHz. Memory is much slower (900 versus 1200) and GCN cores are more efficient. 35% more theoretical throughput assuming equal shader performance (not true).

Makes it a downclocked 7870. Also quashes the idea of a 7990M. Already at 100W.

edit: fixed wrong info. 7870 has 1280 SPUs, not 7850.

 

If those are the actual specs I would be extremely surprised, as a desktop 7850 is 1024 spu's, 860mhz core, 1200mhz memory, 130w. The 7870 has 1280 SPU's, unlikely.

 

You are correct. I pulled up a wrong article that said the 7850 had 1280. It's the 7870.

 

Either way it's not possible as the 7850 clocks leave the 7850 at 130 watts, and the 7870 at normal clocks is 150+. A 7870 @ 7850 clocks would probably be around 140 watts, so the clocks have to be wrong.

Edit: That page is jokes... "Along with the computer monitor itself, the video card determines the number of colors that can be displayed, as well as the contrast, resolution and overall gaming graphics."

 

The numbers are believable. It's a 7870 with sub 7850 clocks. 7850 measured around 100W here: AMD Radeon HD 7850 and 7870 review

Have to remember that they are likely a little more selective with their binning on mobile parts too. Lower quantities means they can select choice parts as they sell for much more anyway.

Well, that's all technically true. What they don't mention is that you'll never find a GPU that doesn't do 16.7 million colors or has such poor image quality that it starts affecting contrast.

 

Amazing find on the 7970.
That makes me so much happier that I waited out the 580/675 for this instead.