Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
680MX Benchmarks please
- Thread starter tacokisses
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I respectfully disagree, and we can leave it at that.
That's fine but its not a matter of opinion, its a fact that the 680mx is more powerful then the GPU cards used in the PS4 and Xbone. Its not really up for debate afaik. Feel free to show me some facts that the GPU is more powerful in the consoles and i will happily concede. You also need to remember that the new consoles are running on the exact same architecture as current PC's including the iMac. This means alot of games will be developed for PC and "Dumbed" down to run on the lower powered consoles. A current high end gaming PC will destroy the PS4 or Xbone.
Last edited:
Given that the exact specifications of the target hardware are known, there IS a level of optimization that happens for consoles that isn't possible for PC games. However, it usually takes about a year after a console's release for most of the "tricks" to be discovered, so I expect iMac 680MX performance on the PS4/X1 launch titles to be at least on par.
Please note which part of your post I quoted before bashing my response.
And then read the post above this one, which is more generous than I still believe.
I don't think games will be developed on PC and dumbed down for the consoles, despite the x86 architecture. And just because it IS x86 architecture doesn't mean it's "the same as PC." After all, how many games take advantage of all the CPU cores on the iMacs and PCs? Not many! How many games are going to take advantage of the multiple cores on the PS4 and XBOX ONE? All of them!
On paper the HTC ONE and Galaxy S4 are miles more powerful than iPhone 5. In reality, the iPhone 5 provides the smoother experience. I suspect (whereas you just "know" the opposite) the same logic applies to the next-gen consoles. Different OS to PC. Different hardware. Wait and see.
Why are we even still discussing this? Wait a few months, and then we'll see. Not going to bother replying at this point since we're not going to achieve anything.
----------
I think it's generous. Given Torana's logic, though, the PS4/XBOX ONE will NEVER be as competent as the 680MX at any point during its life cycle. I actually think launch titles, - or at the very minimum titles that are released soon thereafter, will blow away the iMac graphically.
Anyway, enjoy the thread, all. I'll pop back here at the end of the year.
Yep as i said earlier in the thread the only thing that will give the consoles a small leg up is if games are optimized for the hardware, this was apparent last gen but now that the consoles are using the same architecture there will be very little to gain from optimization, instead developers will be looking to make things easier for themselves by developing the one game for a high end PC and simply turning down the details to suit each console.
----------
You don't get it do you? PC gaming has been held back by consoles for so long, most games were ported over from the last gen consoles and barely pushed a modern gaming PC to its limits. Now that the new consoles are running the EXACT same architecture, the games on PC will be "unleashed" to put it simply. Games will start taking advantage of all the cores on a gaming PC (and let me tell you an i7 quad core has ALOT more power then the crappy AMD cpu's in the new consoles), you will start to see what a high end gaming PC can really do. The 680mx is close to a high end GPU, it will have no problem running ANY game that is developed for the new consoles. The GPU's in the new consoles are mid tier at best.
You are far too simplistic in your thinking. "Faster processor + faster graphics chips = better games" is basically wrong. You under-estimate the huge performance gains to be had by optimizing for specific hardware and by not having to have a fat, resource hungry OS in the way. This is not a trivial thing, it makes a big difference.
Last edited:
Im well aware of what optimization can achieve, but for alot of games developers are not going to code the game specifically for the console when they can basically code the PC, Xbone and PS3 version all at the same time due to them all running the same x86 architecture. Sure there will be some console specific games that will probably be optimized for the hardware but if you think those games are going to look better then on a higher end gaming rig you are mistaken. When it comes to gaming the power of the GPU is EVERYTHING. Optimization can only get you so far
Im well aware of what optimization can achieve, but for alot of games developers are not going to code the game specifically for the console when they can basically code the PC, Xbone and PS3 version all at the same time due to them all running the same x86 architecture. Sure there will be some console specific games that will probably be optimized for the hardware but if you think those games are going to look better then on a higher end gaming rig you are mistaken. When it comes to gaming the power of the GPU is EVERYTHING. Optimization can only get you so far
Let me give you just one example of the optimization you can expect.
Your main game loop and its supporting functions are going to run in the CPU. When you're developing for PC, your target CPU is going to have anywhere between 2 and (say) 16 cores, with 4 and 8 (HT) being the most common. You release one binary that has to work well enough on all of your target systems. If you optimize for 16 threads, then the lower systems are going to be doing a lot of context switching and probably have very poor performance. If you optimize for 2 threads, then you've simplified your entire experience, and most of the power of the higher systems is going to be sitting idle. Most games optimize for something like the lowest common denominator and don't take full advantage of the available power.
Now when you're developing for X1 and PS4, you know your CPU has exactly 8 (real hardware) cores. You can optimize for 8 threads, know each thread is going to get a dedicated core without context switching, and even know in advance at what times you plan to have cores open to offload some GPU tasks. There's no guesswork involved; there's no worrying about the least common denominator; there's "this is exactly the hardware that's available; there's no resources competing with me to use it; I can use it exactly how I want to".
Put another way, it's the difference between designing a robot to drive "a car" and designing a robot to drive "a 2010 Ford Mustang GT". (Now, the PS4 and X1 are similar enough in hardware that most of the difference is the color paint on the car.
)Let me give you just one example of the optimization you can expect.
Your main game loop and its supporting functions are going to run in the CPU. When you're developing for PC, your target CPU is going to have anywhere between 2 and (say) 16 cores, with 4 and 8 (HT) being the most common. You release one binary that has to work well enough on all of your target systems. If you optimize for 16 threads, then the lower systems are going to be doing a lot of context switching and probably have very poor performance. If you optimize for 2 threads, then you've simplified your entire experience, and most of the power of the higher systems is going to be sitting idle. Most games optimize for something like the lowest common denominator and don't take full advantage of the available power.
Now when you're developing for X1 and PS4, you know your CPU has exactly 8 (real hardware) cores. You can optimize for 8 threads, know each thread is going to get a dedicated core without context switching, and even know in advance at what times you plan to have cores open to offload some GPU tasks. There's no guesswork involved; there's no worrying about the least common denominator; there's "this is exactly the hardware that's available; there's no resources competing with me to use it; I can use it exactly how I want to".
Put another way, it's the difference between designing a robot to drive "a car" and designing a robot to drive "a 2010 Ford Mustang GT". (Now, the PS4 and X1 are similar enough in hardware that most of the difference is the color paint on the car.
In a nutshell, this.
This thread is getting painful to read.
Torana, seriously, quit while you're ahead. While I am not allowed to say for whom or in what capacity, I have experience in game dev. You aren't just a tiny bit wrong about how console development works versus PC development, you are completely wrong. As in, entirely, not even a shred of truth to what you're saying wrong. You get some things right, like the relative, on-paper strengths and weaknesses of hardware, but that's a false equivalency. It does not create a basis for making declarative statements about relative performance since, as forty2j points out, the development processes and limitations on a given platform are wildly different.
Please just stop. You're not arguing from a position of knowledge.
Torana, seriously, quit while you're ahead. While I am not allowed to say for whom or in what capacity, I have experience in game dev. You aren't just a tiny bit wrong about how console development works versus PC development, you are completely wrong. As in, entirely, not even a shred of truth to what you're saying wrong. You get some things right, like the relative, on-paper strengths and weaknesses of hardware, but that's a false equivalency. It does not create a basis for making declarative statements about relative performance since, as forty2j points out, the development processes and limitations on a given platform are wildly different.
Please just stop. You're not arguing from a position of knowledge.
Let me give you just one example of the optimization you can expect.
Your main game loop and its supporting functions are going to run in the CPU. When you're developing for PC, your target CPU is going to have anywhere between 2 and (say) 16 cores, with 4 and 8 (HT) being the most common. You release one binary that has to work well enough on all of your target systems. If you optimize for 16 threads, then the lower systems are going to be doing a lot of context switching and probably have very poor performance. If you optimize for 2 threads, then you've simplified your entire experience, and most of the power of the higher systems is going to be sitting idle. Most games optimize for something like the lowest common denominator and don't take full advantage of the available power.
Now when you're developing for X1 and PS4, you know your CPU has exactly 8 (real hardware) cores. You can optimize for 8 threads, know each thread is going to get a dedicated core without context switching, and even know in advance at what times you plan to have cores open to offload some GPU tasks. There's no guesswork involved; there's no worrying about the least common denominator; there's "this is exactly the hardware that's available; there's no resources competing with me to use it; I can use it exactly how I want to".
Put another way, it's the difference between designing a robot to drive "a car" and designing a robot to drive "a 2010 Ford Mustang GT". (Now, the PS4 and X1 are similar enough in hardware that most of the difference is the color paint on the car.
I understand this but this is not the point i was making, my number one point was the 680mx is more then capable of running games that will be on the Xbone and PS4. I understand you can optimize for the hardware but that can only get you so far, at a certain point you cant beat having a more powerful GPU.
----------
Yeah and im an Astronaut
If you think Devs are not going to take advantage of PC, Xbone and PS4 running on the same architecture you are crazy. Im well aware how optimization can get every last drop of performance out of a certain piece of hardware but like i said before, at a certain point the only way forward is better hardware.
Last edited:
I understand this but this is not the point i was making, my number one point was the 680mx is more then capable of running games that will be on the Xbone and PS4. I understand you can optimize for the hardware but that can only get you so far, at a certain point you cant beat having a more powerful GPU.
You would be exactly right if PC developers were targeting a 4-core 3.2Ghz i5 with 8GB of RAM and a 680MX with 2GB of VRAM, if they could assume the game was the only thing in memory besides the operating system. But they're not, and they can't. They're targeting high and low end systems of all shapes and sizes from over 2-3 years (sometimes 4-5 years) that could be running Steam, IE, and Kaspersky in the background. You're vastly underestimating the optimization potential when you have only one target specification to worry about and you're running on dedicated resources.
There may be some efficiencies with the PC architecture having a similar (but not identical) instruction set to the consoles, in terms of common libraries / code bits they can reuse. But if the developers treat the X1 / PS4 as a mid-range PC and try to make essentially a common binary, the experience will suffer greatly and you will easily tell the difference between those that optimized for the platform and those that didn't.
Throwing more hardware at problem doesn't solve anything if your code isn't using the hardware.
Fair enough, i have a question for you then, how far will optimization be able to carry the Xbone for example? Will it exceed that of a top end gaming pc with all settings set to ultra? There has to be a limit where the better hardware that a good pc has with the next gen of games is going to surpass that of the optimized Consoles graphics. For example the current Xbox 360 graphics which are also optimized for the hardware are terrible compared to even a low end gaming rig.
The 360 is an 8-year-old PowerPC system. It's past the point where optimization can help it surpass current hardware.
Where is the actual nexus point? I'm not exactly sure. Again I don't put much faith in console developers to have everything down for optimizing the launch titles. Stab in the dark, here's how I think it plays out:
Better appearance, X1/PS4 vs. then-current PC hardware
2013: Tie
2014: X1/PS4
2015: Tie
2016: PC
2017: PC
2018: PC
Who gives a monkey's *ss about comparing consoles and Macs, they're different beasts for different markets.
I'm just happy that I can run Planetside 2 on medium settings at 50fps, in huge battles and kick some Terran butt.
What amazes me even more is that the iMac doesn't even get hot, my old machine was like sitting infront of a fan heater in Summer...
I'm just happy that I can run Planetside 2 on medium settings at 50fps, in huge battles and kick some Terran butt.
What amazes me even more is that the iMac doesn't even get hot, my old machine was like sitting infront of a fan heater in Summer...
Can I just ask you, why do you insist on keep calling it the Xbone? It's a free country so call it what you like, but I have to confess that it grates slightly, with me at least.
Just an abbreviation. Im a console gamer and primarily game on the Xbox 360 btw
Hmmmm, an abbreviation with more letters than the actual word ;-)
I'm pretty sure Apple will end up cranking up the freqs for 780m whatever name they'll give to it. The reason is the fact that 680mx/780m chip uses the whole gk104 silicon already, and there is no room for improvement. The gk110 (780/Titan) simply costs way too much to be used by Apple.
Xbox one - 7 letters
Xbone - 5 letters.....
I had no clue you meant the Xbox One, so either I was being stupid, or the abbreviation is not that obvious. Probably the former ;-)