1 well the proof is in the pudding , just look at video
Proof of what? Do you have the exact same video running on different hardware with a smoother frame rate? If not, then exactly what do you suppose this is proving?
2 well i said in compute tasks
And I said irrelevant unless those compute tasks need to run synchronously with gameplay and are unable to run on the CPU side of the PCI-E interface. In other words, you're speaking of advantages where they may not exist at all. It's possible I'll grant you that, but then it's also possible that the vast majority of GPGPU requirements for next gen games will agnostic to PCI-E latency (i.e. not required to run synchronously with gamplay). Or they will be light enough to run on big PC CPU SIMD units - or even IGP's.
3 much quciker acces, mucz less coping and waiting for data, more options for practical use. lets write email to nvidia architects , they are wasting resourecs on unified adress space in maxwell
Quicker access how? How will the GPU be able to access it's local memory faster in a unified setup than with a dedicated memory setup? Copying? How much copying is required between GPU memory and main memory in the middle of rendering a scene? What impact does this have? Ask yourself this: How much more performant is something like Llano or Trinity compared to a discrete GPU of similar specification and memory bandwidth? Your argument concludes it would be significantly more so. Lets see if you can find some benchmarks showing that
4"DX11+ GPUs as standard and the ability to construct draw lists over multiple threads thus making submission/draw faster meaning more draw calls and more stuff on screen and looking better.
Okay, so this just became another draw calls argument, the same one you repeated 2 points later in a different way. As stated in my last post, draw calls is a known and clear disadvantage for the PC. But it's no worse, in fact it's a lot better thanks to DX11 despite the shortfalls you correctly mention here, than it was last generation which for the most part was stuck with the limitations of draw calls under DX9. DX11 at least improves the situations by a fairly significant amount, albeit still no-where near on par with the console situation. Lets not overstate the issue though. Unless you can point to a game from the last generation that suffered on PC in relation to it's console counterpart thanks to this limitation. Just the one will do...
5 and thats exactly why running both graphics and compute task is so slow currently
What evidence do you have of this apparent slowness? Current PC architectures are plenty capable of running both graphics rendering and GPGPU workloads on the same GPU simultaneously provided the GPGPU work isn't required to run synchronously with gameplay. The PS4, if indeed it does have more ACEs will be a little more efficient at this than first generation GCN GPU's but should be no more so than the second generation which should be prevalent by the time the console actually launches.
7partialy agree, but 2GB will be limiting not even from rendering performance but simply from targeting assets etc... And in 2005 ,512Mb vram was a lot more common than 8GB in 2013...
Not really. In 2005 1 GPU sported 512MB of memory if I recall correctly which was the 7800GTX 512MB. By the end of 2013 when these consoles launch there's no reason why we won't see 8 or even 12GB GPU's available. The only limitation today is memory chip density which by the end of this year will have doubled over what it is today. And today we have 4 and 6GB card available (albeit in limited quantities). Simply doubling the density of the chips on those cards gives us 8GB and 12GB cards.
Nevertheless, I still agree that 2GB will ultimately be a limitation of today's cards and will inevitably result in things like texture resolutions having to be reduced or loading times/instances having to be increased amongst other things.
BONUS
1 we are all know how much optimisation most pc ports have...
Yes, about the same as last generation. So we all understand that as the console generation progresses. consoles will gradually require less raw power to match PC performance thanks to platform, specific optimisations. However early on in the generation (when the likes of the 680 will still be barely relevant), those optimisation advantages are going to be fairly limited. Especially when you consider how similar the console architectures are to the PC this generation.
2 when these advanced games will ship , nvidia will have to sell next round of cards and i fell perfect excuse to leve 680 behind in performance, drivers adjusted accordingly...
Well, yes absolutely. By the time we are event worrying about whether the 680 can keep up with the consoles it will be considered a last generation GPU and GPU's with a lot more power will be available. Still, 1 generation old GPU's are still quite well supported and this still falls in the timeframe of first generation (unoptimised) consoles games which it will handle more than fine.
By the time we actually get to fully optimised console games a year or two into the generation the 680 will indeed be old and falling out of regular driver support. At this point it may even start to struggle to keep up with the latest releases at full settings due to memory size limitations and lack of driver support. But by then even mainstream gamers will be running 860Ti's sporting 4-8GB and 50% more raw performance so I guess it's not that big a deal eh?
well we heard this "similar dx level "last time too, and qucickly dx10 was needed for simple ports...
Really? And just how many of the hundreds of cross platform games required DX10 in the PC version for console parity? And how many achieved it with good old DX9?
bad performance of some cosnole games were effect of painfull learning of in order, mulithreded cpus and quick pc ports not gpu. And i remeber good stuff like graw and just cause too, with graphical features absent in pc versions running on hardware with more fillrate ,texrate etc (xtx1900...)
GRAW was a completely different game on the PC. JC I'll grant but it was one of the few exceptions. The general rule was more in line with Oblivion, COD, Quake Wars, HL2:EP3 and all the other big games of the time that ran just as well or better on G7x and R5xx hardware under DX9 as they did on PS360.