You could potentially trigger a 'refresh display now' command when a new frame is ready. I don't see why not.
Game Streaming Platforms and Technology (xCloud, PSNow, GeforceNow, Luna) (Rip: Stadia)
- Thread starter lefantome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cloudwars f facebook
Alucardx23
Regular
Excellent, thanks Shifty. This is something I expect to see down the line with cloud gaming. There is no reason why we must be limited to 60hz and loose out on lower latency.
MS could create their own streaming file format with embedded codes to be read by their own proprietary decoder, no? A stream-player needs only know when a frame is ready to trigger a 'refresh' event. If on fixed timing, send those every screen update. If on flexible timing, send one every complete frame received when the backbuffer is changed.
It would add latency to interpolate between past and future frames. I would expect the codec to only predict frames based on past frames. Yes, that will increase the bandwidth demands.
There is huge frame-to-frame similarity though, so ditching predicted frames would be wasteful. Modern codecs can divide the screen into slices, which are independent. Which means you can have a slice getting fully updated (I-frame in mpeg2 parlance) which another slice gets displacement vectors (P-frame).
Cheers
I believe they are native games not streamed.
didn't ms say they are using a custom encode, and that they can improve it using ML?
Can't remember where I heard that, but it was recent.
That is not Streaming from what they showed.
It makes sense because this is what the base power Stadia offers per user and it doesn't have to be a console for people to know that this is the experience they can get. It's also unrealistic to expect Google to offer a lot more than that right now per user which is why they marketed 10.7 TF. Google can stack more gpus to 20 TFs per user sure, but that's most likely not economically feasible for them right now.
But as that's possible and that's what the consoles will be facing, what's the point in a TF arms race? Two years after PS5 launches, Google offers 20 TF per user. And two years after that, 40 TFs per user. The consoles will never be able to compare with the Powerz Of Teh Cloud in numbers, but they'll give a far superior experience.
They are two different products and the TF figures don't matter. A puny 8 TF console will still be the fastest console ever made.
They are two different products and the TF figures don't matter. A puny 8 TF console will still be the fastest console ever made.
Last edited:
Totally different considerations.
If I gave you $500 and asked you to build a gaming pc, the pc would turn out very different if the remit was:
A) under TV in living room, quiet and looks nice
B) located in cupboard, sound, power usage, looks not an issue.
Another example:
1. Cloud only
2. Console only
3. Cloud and console
4. Cloud, entry and enthusiast console
Each option would impact on the design(will chips be used in different locations) , hardware considerations(e.g. binning) and cost that each could be produced for due to where you expect to sell more and offset costs.
Don't just take 10.7TF and not put context around it. It doesn't sound like an apu, are you saying you don't think consoles will use apu?
Will a shrink allow more TF at lower tdp?
I'm not saying its not a useful data point, just saying you can't say because X, follows that consoles has to be Y. Especially as its based on cloud rack.
Cloud gaming has an advantage cost wise when it comes to hardware, because the cost is amortized over many subscribers.
However, when you splash for a console, you will expect better visual fidelity than you get from a streamed service. That sort of dictates a higher TF device. Console vendors will have to carefully optimize the performance/cost point though.
Game genres that require low input lag, like fighters, twitch shooters and racing sims will be better on consoles. But franchises like Civilization and League of Legends will be just fine on a streamed service.
I will be surprised if Sone and MS didn't offer both next gen.
Cheers
However, when you splash for a console, you will expect better visual fidelity than you get from a streamed service. That sort of dictates a higher TF device. Console vendors will have to carefully optimize the performance/cost point though.
Game genres that require low input lag, like fighters, twitch shooters and racing sims will be better on consoles. But franchises like Civilization and League of Legends will be just fine on a streamed service.
I will be surprised if Sone and MS didn't offer both next gen.
Cheers
Cloud may not only be used for games also.
Which experience would you prefer?
1. Higher graphical settings, with latency and possible image inconsistencies due to streaming
2. Lower graphical settings, local latency, consistent image
Different people will make different choices.
People already except consoles are behind pc in graphics, won't surprise me people will learn to except different compromises (for console and cloud) when cloud is thrown into the mix
Which experience would you prefer?
1. Higher graphical settings, with latency and possible image inconsistencies due to streaming
2. Lower graphical settings, local latency, consistent image
Different people will make different choices.
People already except consoles are behind pc in graphics, won't surprise me people will learn to except different compromises (for console and cloud) when cloud is thrown into the mix
That all depends on the ISP and things like latency and dropped packets and bad routing or lag. I thought it was mostly a nonissue but then I've been reading through DSLReport forums. The number of threads with people impacted by unplayable online games on PC or PS4 or Xbox is higher than expected and quite alarming. I can't see how Stadia will not be effected the same way (if not worse). All it takes is a few vocal gamers/streamers impacted by those issues to turn off an even larger potential consumer pool. At least with traditional consoles they could still play single player games.
Good points, I think I might have overlooked a few things and didn't take them into consideration. Although according to Benji both Sony and MS are still aiming to surpass that regardless, maybe they wanted to win the numbers game either way at launch and see whatever Stadia takes it to next.
This could actually move to the publishers though. EA could run their own cloud servers for games. Basically, every game now that's networked and slow paced could just be run from servers anyway. Add a streaming protocol to the servers and you could have local agents connect, rendering locally, and streamed agents connect getting a video feed. In that world, Google's at no great advantage. These servers could choose to run on Azure or Sonynet or Amazon Cloud or Google Cloud or Apple Cloud, and these services would have to compete with each other for economy to operate these games.
Low latency streaming services need specific hardware and setup, so can't be run just anywhere, but those games are going to be moderately sucky on cloud versus console/PC.
anexanhume
Veteran
It doesn’t matter what the point is, it’s relevant to marketing regardless. Notice that Google is the first streaming platform to put some performance numbers behind their service claim. They clearly think it to be a salient point with their target market, so TF discussions aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.
If you got the most powerful you will say.
If you got the highest rated games, you will say.
List of other marketing points....
Doesn't make it important in isolation.
So I don't think anybody would be surprised that at any given time someone saying they've got the most power.
Also doesn't mean they all think they have to have it.
I have no doubt that Stadia's TFlopage has little influence on Sony's or MS's design for all mentioned reasons and more.
General consumers don't care that much, the ones that care a bit won't be drawing that many comparisons between such different products, the performance of a console is very different than of a server running Linux/vulkan ports of Windows/DX12 versions of games, consoles still have the latency and picture quality win, yada yada yada.
When the earlier quoted guy said the one take away from this GDC was that the console makers were aiming at higher performance than Stadia, I took it to mean that that's what the whispers through the grapevine vines at GDC were. If it is in fact a thing that people from Sony and MS are privately telling devs here and there to expect their next boxes to be 10TF+ that can only be a good thing, even if they fail to hit their mark, we at least know they are aiming hight.
General consumers don't care that much, the ones that care a bit won't be drawing that many comparisons between such different products, the performance of a console is very different than of a server running Linux/vulkan ports of Windows/DX12 versions of games, consoles still have the latency and picture quality win, yada yada yada.
When the earlier quoted guy said the one take away from this GDC was that the console makers were aiming at higher performance than Stadia, I took it to mean that that's what the whispers through the grapevine vines at GDC were. If it is in fact a thing that people from Sony and MS are privately telling devs here and there to expect their next boxes to be 10TF+ that can only be a good thing, even if they fail to hit their mark, we at least know they are aiming hight.
They were at the Game Developer's Conference talking to Game Developers. How could they talk about their service to potential content creators without giving them an idea of the level of performance they'd be able to work with? The TF figure was pretty necessary as part of the announcement, and not a nice little marketing aside to tempt Joe Gamer.
Similar threads
