• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NVIDIA introduces GRID - Might be the end of consoles!

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
I realize DVD is old algorithm but its fast to encode and decode, remember any compressing they do of the output file(H.264 or whatever they go with) is going to add latency which is already going to be high with this type of setup, they would have to go with a very fast algorithm that doesnt take much CPU/GPU time to encode/decode for best performance and thats going to result in larger files to stream.
GRID performs hardware ENcoding for H264. Which AFAIK is not that uncommon... with hardware DEcoding of H264 being near universal nowadays.

This is actually the one big feature GRID brings. Its where it actually saves time. Its what makes it superior to current cloud gaming (but still totally and utterly impractical due to reasons enumerated)

And as I said, even with advanced encoding algorithms you are still looking at obscene amounts of bandwidth. people are gonna want at least 720p30
480p (DVD resolution) ain't gonna cut it. (like YOU said, I am not trying to correct you, just expanding here)
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
100-200 ms is pretty normal. I have seen much worse... A really good broadband can get much lower though

0.65c, aka 200km/ms. Is the speed of light in a fiber optic cable.

the US is 3000 miles across (east to west)
3000 miles = 4 828 032 meters

It takes a mere 24.14016ms for light to cross that distance in a fiber optic cable.. And usually the servers are closer. The vast majority of your ping is coming from switching. (the fact the cables are not going in a straight line adds a bit too)


It will be obscene...



yea but DVDs are encoded in MPEG2, an algorithm from 1996.
Still, its going to be an obscene amount of data that will make ISPs throw a hissy fit.
False.
The vast majority of lantency comes from a) protocol lantency and b) distance.

You could read up here as I have covered this before:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2085280&highlight=shdsl&page=2

Post #38

(Did you forget that thread already? :cool:)

That you think 200ms ping is normal, tells me that either you are not informed...or the ISP's in the US are very abysmal :eek:
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
False.
The vast majority of lantency comes from a) protocol lantency and b) distance.

You could read up here as I have covered this before:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2085280&highlight=shdsl&page=2

Post #38

(Did you forget that thread already? :cool:)

That you think 200ms ping is normal, tells me that either you are not informed...or the ISP's in the US are very abysmal :eek:
I didn't forget, I was ignoring you. You are being rude about it so it doesn't deserve an answer. Also you seem to be skimming my posts before doing so and then copy pasting the exact same reply post
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
I didn't forget, I was ignoring you. You are being rude about it so it doesn't deserve an answer. Also you seem to be skimming my posts before doing so and then copy pasting the exact same reply post
That you don't like the real world is not my problem.

But it's a fact for anyone working with networking that switching/routing is the LEAST factor in lantency...unlike your "claim".

But when you reject reality, your posts and arguments suffer and become invalid.

You didn't learn then and you didn't learn now...and that make your wievs irrelevant,...due to the fact that they conflict with reality.

You offered NO counter...beacuse you cannot.

Checkmate :thumbsdown:

For anyone else reading this, these are that facts being ignored:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30046397&postcount=38

No it dosn't
Electricity moves at ~66% the speed of c in a shielded copper cable.
But we don't don't use copper in the internetnet backbone, we use fiber.
But there the same rules apply, light only moves at ~66% the speed of c in a fiber cable.
Simple physics FYI.

The only place you can reach c is in a vacuum.

You need to redo your math.

Oh, BTW you need to learn something about networking too:
Code:
Tracing route to [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL] [208.65.201.105]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 
1 <1 ms * <1 ms xxx.xxx.xxx [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
2 10 ms <1 ms <1 ms ve8.cosw1.hoer.dk.ip.fullrate.dk [90.185.3.25]
3 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms te2-2.boanxc7.dk.ip.tdc.net [195.215.109.229]
4 31 ms 16 ms 16 ms xe-0-3-0.cr1.lhr1.uk.nlayer.net [195.66.224.37]
5 95 ms 107 ms 94 ms xe-7-0-0.cr1.nyc3.us.nlayer.net [69.22.142.30]
6 100 ms 100 ms 99 ms xe-2-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.nlayer.net [69.22.142.92]
7 100 ms 100 ms 100 ms ae1-40g.ar1.iad1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.31.178]
8 100 ms 100 ms 100 ms r1.vadc1.eicomm.net [69.31.30.218]
9 100 ms 100 ms 100 ms 208.65.201.105
Trace complete.

Notice how switching/routing adds no real measurable lantency, but distance does?

That because the biggest fator of lantency in world wide communication is distance, not the number op hops.

Network Technician (with an understanding of physics) for an ISP here.

Just F.Y.I.


http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30047177&postcount=50

A ping is too and from.
A sends a packet to B
B recieves packet and sends reply back.
So you need to double the distances/time.

And you forget that I am sitting on a 1G fiberlink directy into out backbone, so I don't have the intial lantency on various xDSL technologies.

SHDSL = 1-3ms latency from IAD til DSLAM
ADSL = 8-15ms lantecy from IAD to DSLAM
ADSL2+ = 20-35 ms lantecy from IAD to DSLAM


I know, have a KillerNic myself, due to the fact that I can compile linux apps to run directly on my NIC.

Onboard NIC's are crap...especially if you put a heavy load on your connection, or run many sessions at the same time.




I will dissect it here:

Code:
1 <1 ms * <1 ms xxx.xxx.xxx [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]
[B]My connection[/B]
2 10 ms <1 ms <1 ms ve8.cosw1.hoer.dk.ip.fullrate.dk [90.185.3.25]
[B]Our coreswitch...notice the lantency is the same, even if has been routed.[/B]
3 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms te2-2.boanxc7.dk.ip.tdc.net [195.215.109.229]
[B]Another ISP, but in the same country...notice the same lantency, we have routed but travled not far[/B]
4 31 ms 16 ms 16 ms xe-0-3-0.cr1.lhr1.uk.nlayer.net [195.66.224.37]
[B]Notice the ping goes up...moving Denmark to UK[/B]
5 95 ms 107 ms 94 ms xe-7-0-0.cr1.nyc3.us.nlayer.net [69.22.142.30]
[B]Notice the pings go up...moving from the UK to the US[/B]
6 100 ms 100 ms 99 ms xe-2-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.nlayer.net [69.22.142.92]
[B]Moving in the US[/B]
7 100 ms 100 ms 100 ms ae1-40g.ar1.iad1.us.nlayer.net [69.31.31.178]
[B]In the US...but no added lantency, simple routing[/B]
8 100 ms 100 ms 100 ms r1.vadc1.eicomm.net [69.31.30.218]
[B]In the US...but no added lantency, simple routing[/B]
9 100 ms 100 ms 100 ms 208.65.201.105
[B]In the US...but no added lantency, simple routing and at destination[/B]
The ping show pings form different locations(hops) on the router from my IP to anandtech.com, but my ping should be ~100 ms til anandtech.com from that traceroute:
Code:
Pinging [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL] [208.65.201.105] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 208.65.201.105: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.65.201.105: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.65.201.105: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 208.65.201.105: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Ping statistics for 208.65.201.105:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 100ms, Maximum = 100ms, Average = 100ms
And so it is.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30047306&postcount=52

You to take into account that a core-router has pings and trace as VERY low priority.
It handlles the packte traffic and when it has ilde time it repplies on ping/traces, that is why the number fluctuates.
And why you look at the first number (the "norm")

This is from a customers router (running ADSL2+)

Code:
fullrate> ip traceroute [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL]
Resolving [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL]... traceroute to [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL] (208.65.201.105)
30 hops max, 40 byte packet
1:xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (50 ms) (20 ms) (20 ms)
2:90.185.4.217 (v243-cosw1-ar.fullrate.dk) (20 ms) (20 ms) (20 ms)
3:195.215.109.205 (te2-2.arcnxc7.dk.ip.tdc.net) (20 ms) (20 ms) (20 ms)
4:83.88.13.5 (pos6-0-0.ldn2nxg2.uk.ip.tdc.net) (50 ms) (40 ms) (50 ms)
5:195.66.226.37 (xe-3-0-0.cr1.lhr1.uk.nlayer.net) (40 ms) (40 ms) (50 ms)
6:69.22.142.9 (xe-2-2-0.cr1.nyc3.us.nlayer.net) (120 ms) (130 ms) (120 ms)
7:69.22.142.92 (xe-2-0-0.cr1.iad1.us.nlayer.net) (130 ms) (130 ms) (130 ms)
8:69.31.31.178 (ae1-40g.ar1.iad1.us.nlayer.net) (130 ms) (130 ms) (130 ms)
 
*snip*
Notice the 20 ms at the first hop?
That was the xDSL lantency from IAD(router) to DSLAM

But notice that even if we route from hop 2 to 3, the lantency don't go up, because the geopgrahical distance is miniscule.

The biggest step in lantency is then:

From IAD to DSLAM (hop 1) 20ms added
From DK to UK (hop 4) 30ms added
From UK to US (hop 6) 80ms added

At total of 130ms added from geographical distance.
Now if we ping from the same router, we get this:
Code:
fullrate> ip ping [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL]
Resolving [URL="http://www.anandtech.com/"][COLOR=#0066cc]www.anandtech.com[/COLOR][/URL]... 208.65.201.105
sent rcvd rate rtt avg mdev max min
1 1 100 130 130 0 130 130
2 2 100 120 129 3 130 120
3 3 100 120 128 5 130 120
The lantecy is added via distance...not routing.

Hope that helped.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sending a packet from US, to denmark, to UK, back to the US means that the issue is one of "distance". Its not, its a switching problem where packets are routed incorrectly.

You further claimed that the majority of ping is from the network stack... yet the example YOU PROVIDED showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce the local router proving that the network stack took under 1ms.
In comparison, it took 10 ms to bounce it from local ISP (which is way way closer then 2 million meters = 1,242.74238 miles.)
Of those 10 ms, it was neither the network stack nor the distance that accounted for the majority. That only leaves the ISPs switches/routers.

Then the ISP shitty system makes a critical error and tosses the connection across the ocean. That adds a serious amount of lag. Distance is PART of the issue but that is distance that shouldn't have been traveled. If I drive my car in circles around the destination then the reason I am using up a lot of fuel is not the distance to my target, its the fact I don't know how to read a map.

I offered no counter earlier because you are extremely rude and I have better things to do with my time then raise my blood pressure at someone who doesn't know basic civility.
 
Last edited:

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
You're ignoring the facts about bandwidth needed for this to run properly, the fact that most ppl have ADSL internet (latency), slower than required speed, they quality of the encoded video and the cost of encoding it at 60 fps at decent quality.

Problems, problems everywhere.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
You're ignoring the facts about bandwidth needed for this to run properly, the fact that most ppl have ADSL internet (latency), slower than required speed, they quality of the encoded video and the cost of encoding it at 60 fps at decent quality.

Problems, problems everywhere.
who is the you who is ignoring that fact? Most people here are pretty critical of this and several of us have specifically raised this issue already.
 

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
I was referring to Lonbjerg. Sorry I didn't check your post before posting.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
I was referring to Lonbjerg. Sorry I didn't check your post before posting.
No problem and thanks for clarifying.
I had that happen to me often before, nowadays when I am not quoting someone I write out whom I am replying to to prevent such confusion confusion
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sending a packet from US, to denmark, to UK, back to the US means that the issue is one of "distance". Its not, its a switching problem where packets are routed incorrectly.

You further claimed that the majority of ping is from the network stack... yet the example YOU PROVIDED showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce the local router proving that the network stack took under 1ms.
In comparison, it took 10 ms to bounce it from local ISP (which is way way closer then 2 million meters = 1,242.74238 miles.)
Of those 10 ms, it was neither the network stack nor the distance that accounted for the majority. That only leaves the ISPs switches/routers.

Then the ISP shitty system makes a critical error and tosses the connection across the ocean. That adds a serious amount of lag. Distance is PART of the issue but that is distance that shouldn't have been traveled. If I drive my car in circles around the destination then the reason I am using up a lot of fuel is not the distance to my target, its the fact I don't know how to read a map.

I offered no counter earlier because you are extremely rude and I have better things to do with my time then raise my blood pressure at someone who doesn't know basic civility.

Come back when you have CCNA or plus...sorry to say it...but you are babbling about stuff your cleary know nothing about...it's painfull to watch.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
You're ignoring the facts about bandwidth needed for this to run properly, the fact that most ppl have ADSL internet (latency), slower than required speed, they quality of the encoded video and the cost of encoding it at 60 fps at decent quality.

Problems, problems everywhere.
What speed (Mbit/s)is required?
What lantency (ping) is required?

Those are the part that is in my field of work and it seems to me a lot of posters inhere are cluelss about networking and post rubbish, even when informaed of the facts...and that they are wrong...they go "not see, not hear, only post false rubbish.
 

mooncancook

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,856
24
81
Cloud gaming will be fine for old school adventure game where latency is not much of an issue, but on the other hand any modern smart phone can run old school adventure game just fine natively.

Imagine playing some latest pc/console games on a smart phone on the go... only realize you only have 2GB of data per month.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Cloud gaming will be fine for old school adventure game where latency is not much of an issue, but on the other hand any modern smart phone can run old school adventure game just fine natively.

Imagine playing some latest pc/console games on a smart phone on the go... only realize you only have 2GB of data per month.
Lantency is the same as on console...take a look again ;)
 

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
What speed (Mbit/s)is required?
What lantency (ping) is required?

Those are the part that is in my field of work and it seems to me a lot of posters inhere are cluelss about networking and post rubbish, even when informaed of the facts...and that they are wrong...they go "not see, not hear, only post false rubbish.
For an h264 1080p 3 hours action movie like Watchmen you need about 20 GB. But you can't have most of the encoder's prediction features (frame refs, temporal, MB-Tree, etc) since it can't check future frames and that fact would skyrocket the bitrate needed to way above the max specs of bluray standard. That sole thing is leaving out any connection with less than 50 Mbps. But you said that anything below 60 fps is unacceptable (as it is in consoles) so that bitrate will be even higher without any prediction to lower it.

So it leaves lossless or semi-lossless with about the same or even higher bitrate.

As for latency now I'm sitting on a DOSCIS 3.0 connection with 10 ms to my country (~50 ms outside) but when I was using ADSL it was 50 ms (~100 ms outside). I bet this service won't place servers every 500 KM.

http://www.netindex.com/

Now go figure.
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
For an h264 1080p 3 hours action movie like Watchmen you need about 20 GB.
That is the amount of DATA...not bandwith.

But you can't have most of the encoder's prediction features (frame refs, temporal, MB-Tree, etc) since it can't check future frames and that fact would skyrocket the bitrate needed to way above the max specs of bluray standard.
I just got the vibe that networking/cloudgaming is not your force.
(This is no diffrent to how consoels hides input lag today FYI.)

That sole thing is leaving out any connection with less than 50 Mbps. But you said that anything below 60 fps is unacceptable (as it is in consoles) so that bitrate will be even higher without any prediction to lower it.
Ah..and now the lies comes.

Show me consolegames runnning at 1080p @ 60 FPS
Not upscaled.


So it leaves lossless or semi-lossless with about the same or even higher bitrate.
No, you can only reach that conclusion in a cherry-picked senario and if you have limitied or no knowlegde of networking.

As for latency now I'm sitting on a DOSCIS 3.0 connection with 10 ms to my country (~50 ms outside) but when I was using ADSL it was 50 ms (~100 ms outside). I bet this service won't place servers every 500 KM.
Now you prove that you don't have sufficient knowlegde about networking.

I refer to the thread I have linked to.

SHDSL = 1-3ms latency from IAD til DSLAM
ADSL = 8-15ms lantecy from IAD to DSLAM
ADSL2+ = 20-35 ms lantecy from IAD to DSLAM

The rest of the lantency is not routing or switching (hillarious, but bogus claim made in this thread) or due to xDSL technology.

It due to distance.

FYI 500km = ~4(2 x ~2ms for back and forth) ms of added lantency (both for fiber and copper as the signals propregate with 0.65 x c

And you shouldn't use webpages with number you don't seem to understand.

Our avarage lies about ~11,1Mbit7s according to those stats, but that is not because we don't offer 50/10 Mbit.

But because the majority of the world are not gamer..and they only need 6Mbit to stream 720p.

Just like the GTX680 won't be the most selling card, it will more likely be a 650/660 card that takes that place, so 50/10 won't be the most common speed, Infact (and I just checked the data) the most common speed we have is 12/1 Mbit, and looking further at the data I can see that +70% of our customers will be able to run this (@ console res, lantency and FPS, but the added I.Q. I posted before)...even if they place the the nearest center not i Denmark...but eg. in Italy! :D LOL

but again, the numbers don't show what you think they do.

/SIDENOTE

I have observed that those that speak out the most against this not are people with very deep networking knowlegde.
People even ignore the psycial reality and try to use false claims as arguments (eg. switching/routing as the main contributor of lantency)

In order to not not having to debunk the same...well...garbage...time and time again, I will simpy post a:

ARGUMENTS NOT BASED IN NETWORKING REALITY.

; as these post holds no value.

Another observation is the fallacy of "shifting the goalposts"

This is meant to compete against consoles and their upscaled 720p, 50-180ms inputlag, no AA, crappy AF settings.

Not to replace gamer PC's.

Again these posts seem to elveaate consoles, their resolution, their FPS and their I.Q. to hights that is not relevant in this physical universe.

And I have learned that some people are very good at debating GPU's...but really should be queit when it comes to networking as the calims they make can give professionals a slight headache form to many face-to-desk moments.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Aka I am right and you have no counter argument
No.
Your lie about switching/routing as the main contributor to lantency is so easy to debunk..that it was done long ago.

I have seen no technical arguments from your side to support your hillarious claim...infact your post here contains NO arguments, just a fallacy/lie.

I on the other hand (with others) have proven you to be false in this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30046397#post30046397
Which, very funny, also is about cloudgaming.

A topic you are very ignorant about, you even reject reality in order to preserve your stance! :thumbsdown:

I suggest your post your claim about switching/routing here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12
And see how you ignorance is recieved.
 

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
I don't care about networking. I'm telling you the bitrate needed.

1080p * 60fps * live enconding without buffering and prediction * likely action on screen = shitload of bitrate that most of internet connections won't be able to handle.

Add metered connections as a trend today and you have a service doomed before even starting.

Keep raging and repeating yourself all you want. This service with better image quality than current consoles isn't feasible given the current internet connections.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
I on the other hand (with others) have proven you to be false in this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30046397#post30046397
No you didn't. You pointed out that I was not accounting for fiber optic being ~2/3rd the speed of light. Which while I didn't, its no longer the case (simple oversight on my part back then)... And does not in any way change the argument.

Furthermore I analyzed your own data and showed you to be wrong and your only reply to that is "you are laughably wrong" "you are ignorant" and other name calling and not addressing any of the points I made.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sending a packet from US, to denmark, to UK, back to the US means that the issue is one of "distance". Its not, its a switching problem where packets are routed incorrectly.

You further claimed that the majority of ping is from the network stack... yet the example YOU PROVIDED showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce the local router proving that the network stack took under 1ms.
In comparison, it took 10 ms to bounce it from local ISP (which is way way closer then 2 million meters = 1,242.74238 miles.)
Of those 10 ms, it was neither the network stack nor the distance that accounted for the majority. That only leaves the ISPs switches/routers.

Then the ISP shitty system makes a critical error and tosses the connection across the ocean. That adds a serious amount of lag. Distance is PART of the issue but that is distance that shouldn't have been traveled. If I drive my car in circles around the destination then the reason I am using up a lot of fuel is not the distance to my target, its the fact I don't know how to read a map.

I offered no counter earlier because you are extremely rude and I have better things to do with my time then raise my blood pressure at someone who doesn't know basic civility.
It is telling that my only point you ever addressed directly was that oversight about fiberoptic not being vacuum and thus the speed of light in it is only 2/3 C (an oversight I made a long time ago on another thread which you went up and dug to show how wrong I am on everything... since I didn't make a single mistake on this thread for you to point at; as you can see, I am using 2/3 C as the speed of propagation in all my calculations in this thread)... For every issue I raised since you went on an unrelated rant, proclaimed how much of an expert you are, or a personal attack against me.
Please address any of the points I made above USING YOUR OWN DATA.

I don't care about networking. I'm telling you the bitrate needed.

1080p * 60fps * live enconding without buffering and prediction * likely action on screen = shitload of bitrate that most of internet connections won't be able to handle.

Add metered connections as a trend today and you have a service doomed before even starting.

Keep raging and repeating yourself all you want. This service with better image quality than current consoles isn't feasible given the current internet connections.
That is indeed another critical issue with such services.
 
Last edited:

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
1
0
I don't care about networking. I'm telling you the bitrate needed.

1080p * 60fps * live enconding without buffering and prediction * likely action on screen = shitload of bitrate that most of internet connections won't be able to handle.

Add metered connections as a trend today and you have a service doomed before even starting.

Keep raging and repeating yourself all you want. This service with better image quality than current consoles isn't feasible given the current internet connections.
The only way this could possibly be a decent experience is if nvidia creates datacenters all around the US for cloud gaming in specific cities. Otherwise, as mentioned earlier, the US is a geographically large country and most consumers are not using a connection greater than 1MBit. Anyone who thinks cloud gaming is feasible on that type of connection is dreaming......Most american consumers will not pay 100$ for 50MBps. Heck, most providers don't even OFFER greater than 10. This isn't a small country like sweden where everyone has 100MBps.

Furthermore , most ccountries have data limits on their connections, the US is one of the few that for the most part doesn't. I cannot see this idea ever, ever taking off.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
I don't care about networking. I'm telling you the bitrate needed.

1080p * 60fps * live enconding without buffering and prediction * likely action on screen = shitload of bitrate that most of internet connections won't be able to handle.

Add metered connections as a trend today and you have a service doomed before even starting.

Keep raging and repeating yourself all you want. This service with better image quality than current consoles isn't feasible given the current internet connections.
Again, what console (and game) runs 1080p @ 60 FPS.

It a really simple question.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
No you didn't. You pointed out that I was not accounting for fiber optic being ~2/3rd the speed of light. Which while I didn't, its no longer the case (simple oversight on my part back then)... And does not in any way change the argument.

*SNIP*
I will note debate on a foundation of lies:

100-200 ms is pretty normal. I have seen much worse... A really good broadband can get much lower though

0.65c, aka 200km/ms. Is the speed of light in a fiber optic cable.

the US is 3000 miles across (east to west)
3000 miles = 4 828 032 meters

It takes a mere 24.14016ms for light to cross that distance in a fiber optic cable.. And usually the servers are closer. The vast majority of your ping is coming from switching. (the fact the cables are not going in a straight line adds a bit too)
ARGUMENTS NOT BASED IN NETWORKING REALITY.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
I will note debate on a foundation of lies:

The vast majority of your ping is coming from switching.
ARGUMENTS NOT BASED IN NETWORKING REALITY.
Except this is not the FOUNDATION of my argument. It is the end result.
The foundation of argument on which that end result is build is below:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sending a packet from US, to denmark, to UK, back to the US means that the issue is one of "distance". Its not, its a switching problem where packets are routed incorrectly.

You further claimed that the majority of ping is from the network stack... yet the example YOU PROVIDED showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce the local router proving that the network stack took under 1ms.
In comparison, it took 10 ms to bounce it from local ISP (which is way way closer then 2 million meters = 1,242.74238 miles.)
Of those 10 ms, it was neither the network stack nor the distance that accounted for the majority. That only leaves the ISPs switches/routers.

Then the ISP shitty system makes a critical error and tosses the connection across the ocean. That adds a serious amount of lag. Distance is PART of the issue but that is distance that shouldn't have been traveled. If I drive my car in circles around the destination then the reason I am using up a lot of fuel is not the distance to my target, its the fact I don't know how to read a map.

I offered no counter earlier because you are extremely rude and I have better things to do with my time then raise my blood pressure at someone who doesn't know basic civility.
A post to which your ONLY RESPONSE thus far was to proclaim your own expertise, name calling, or to link to older posts or even older threads in an attempt to attack my CREDIBILITY rather then the actual content.
 
Last edited:

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
Again, what console (and game) runs 1080p @ 60 FPS.

It a really simple question.
Isn't this service supposed to be better than consoles and a console killer? If you take out the visuals this service has only cons.

If we lower the specs to 720p@30fps what's the point of having this service when there's 200 million of current gen consoles out there and they have been around for 6 years already? Tons of AA and IQ shit in a 720p frame? For real? It wouldn't be appealing for anyone.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY