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

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Except this is not the FOUNDATION of my argument. It is the end result.
The foundation of argument on which the above is built is:



You are
No, your post is full of misconceptions, false claims and a lack of knowlegde of the topic.

That you think networkstack = xDSL protocol latency says it all.

Your post has nothing to with what I have wriiten or reality.

ARGUMENTS NOT BASED IN NETWORKING REALITY.
 

Mistwalker

Senior member
Feb 9, 2007
343
0
71
Lantency is the same as on console...take a look again ;)
No, it is not. I would tell you to "take a look again", but I've already called you out on this and you told me to "check my facts." I responded with data from one of YOUR links, and you said I was "funny and lost" and didn't actually address the DATA.

Kindly do not tell people (repeatedly) they are ignorant or misrepresenting facts in a thread where you are are doing just that (repeatedly).

I would also politely ask that you refrain from repeated attacks on posters rather than their posted content. It's not constructive.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
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 remove things from a lot of arguemtns, we end up with cherrypicked fallacies.

You still havn't given me the name and game and console that runs 1080p @ 60 FPS.
How many times do I need to ask you for this?

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.
I have already covered this here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33464414&postcount=113

So the set "target" is one you just invented to suit your posistion...nice *chough*



I guess you choose to neglect the target audience...good job!



So you artificial raise the bar...pulling numbers from your *beep**sigh*



I can see this must be very confusing to you.
Think of consolee games ingame grafik vs CGI.
You are hopelessly stuck in resolution + FPS.
These should just match the OUTPUT of consoles(after upscaling).

That gives us a target of 30 FPS @ 720p.

How can that be better than consoles?

I'll let you think for a little while...because this is too funny.
If you give up here is the answer:

A console does output 720p at 30'ish FPS.
But what it outputs is the key here!

Not resolution..bacause it's matched.
Not FPS...because it is matched.
Not lag...because it is mathced.

It's what is being rendered ingame that seperates and elevates this over consoles.

Gone are the limitaions of 256MB RAM.
Textures can be HIGH res in the game engine...unlike current consoles textures = I.Q IMPROVEMENT!
You can use HIGH res shadowmaps in the game engine = I.Q. improvement.
You can use AF in the game engine = I.Q. improvement.
You can use AA in the game enige = I.Q. improvement.

NAme any I.Q. feature...and you can add it...unlike on consoles.

And it dosn't stop there.
Because you are not limited by 6-7years old hardware with limitied resources, you can go futher:

Sandbox.
Destructable architecture.
Better A.I.
Better control options

The list is long.



You are funny, you are so lost staring at the color of the truck...you ingore it's cargo.

Anyways I am done with you, nothing you have said made any positive impact on me...or shown me that you graps the technology o_O

You are going in circles.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
No, it is not. I would tell you to "take a look again", but I've already called you out on this and you told me to "check my facts." I responded with data from one of YOUR links, and you said I was "funny and lost" and didn't actually address the DATA.

Kindly do not tell people (repeatedly) they are ignorant or misrepresenting facts in a thread where you are are doing just that (repeatedly).

I would also politely ask that you refrain from repeated attacks on posters rather than their posted content. It's not constructive.
No, you think all the internetusers are the customersbase.
(How many of these internetcoenenction have a console eg...can you answer that?)

You know people with a 2/05 Mbit line, that just need a basic internetconnection to browse/email.


You didn't make a single argument...only posted a link to Ookla's results on the global avarage internetspeed based on people taht take their test...no corrolation of data...of any kind.

But don't worry...if these are the "counterarguments"...I'm sure +95% of the readers can see right through it.

Networking seems a lot harder than GPU's eh? :cool:
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Which you refuse to name, instead attacking me
Okay, well will take this one step atthe time, since you wiggle a lot when called on a abovious lie and use fallacies,smoke&mirrors and lies to cover it up.

,lets see..what just springs to mind..oh yeah!
First claim:

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.
Show me were I said that.

No detours, no fallacies, no lies...just a simple quote will suffice.

Ball in your court.

(tip: Next one will be your bogus "switching /lantency FUD)..and I will ask for documentation.)
 

Mistwalker

Senior member
Feb 9, 2007
343
0
71
You still havn't given me the name and game and console that runs 1080p @ 60 FPS.
How many times do I need to ask you for this?
Ridge Racer 7, PS3 launch title.

No, you think all the internetusers are the customersbase.
(How many of these internetcoenenction have a console eg...can you answer that?)
I do think needing an internet connection would be required to take advantage of GRID, yes.

You didn't make a single argument...only posted a link to Ookla's results on the global avarage internetspeed based on people taht take their test...no corrolation of data...of any kind.
My only argument is that your initial statement (consoles have identical latencies) was wrong. You made a claim, I refuted it, you demanded proof, I linked to data showing your claim to be dubious at best. Even a handful of users with 67ms response times invalidates your statement, that's the danger in making broad claims.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Show me were I said that.
That you didn't. I was wrong about what your claim was. It was actually
a) protocol lantency and b) distance.
I apologize

See how nice it is when you actually ADDRESS AN ISSUE rather then attack the PERSON who raised it for 3 pages in a row? I immediately admitted I made an error and apologized because I AM NOT OUT TO GET YOU. I am trying to have a discussion like a civilized adult.

However I would like to point out that making a mistake about what YOUR argument does not in any way means that my OWN reasoning is based on lies. I made a perfectly true and accurate argument... I just accidentally made it against a strawman... debunking a statement you never made.

But rather then point this out you personally attacked me for 3 pages, proclaimed your credentials, and dismissed all my arguments as being based on lies (they weren't. They were factually true).

You also showed via large size and red lettering that you consider my statement about switching being the major source of latency a lie and a proof of my ignorance. Interestingly I have clearly stated that switching INCLUDES protocol latency which YOU YOURSELF have proclaimed to be one of the two major things responsible for latency. Do you perhaps disagree with my definition of the term switching? (since otherwise you are calling yourself a liar)

Finally... in your sole argument on post http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33473492&postcount=156 you only pointed out my mistake about YOUR claim... you did not in any way address the meat of my argument which you have been proclaiming to be false.
All along my argument was a contrasting of switching vs distance; wherein I stated that switching accounts for the majority of latency, not distance. I further argued that protocol latency, incorrect routing (bouncing us to denmark to uk to us again), and other such delays fall under switching.
I argued that the actual physical distance between you and a service accounts for very few ms of the ping by itself (I haven't explicitly mentioned it but implied that if it is actually a far away service, then you need more hopes to reach it and switching accumulates even more of a delay). And you did not respond to it still... instead after bashing you over the head with your refusal to address my point your sole response was to correct my accidental strawman. Thanks. Now answer the actual argument which you have proclaimed to be all lies.

So lets see how it revises my argument.
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.
Revises to be:
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 claimed that the majority of ping is from the protocol latency (which is a switching issue) and distance. I do not think distance playes a major role unless switching has been done improperly.
The example you provided showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce from 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.) which is pretty much all switching (mainly protocol latency) and not distance.

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 only indirectly involved here... because all that distance traveled is distance that should NOT 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.
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
That you didn't. I was wrong about what your claim was. It was actually

I apologize

See how nice it is when you actually ADDRESS AN ISSUE rather then attack the PERSON who raised it for 3 pages in a row? I immediately admitted I made an error and apologized because I AM NOT OUT TO GET YOU. I am trying to have a discussion like a civilized adult.

However I would like to point out that making a mistake about what YOUR argument does not in any way means that my OWN reasoning is based on lies. I made a perfectly true and accurate argument... I just accidentally made it against a strawman... debunking a statement you never made.

But rather then point this out you personally attacked me for 3 pages, proclaimed your credentials, and dismissed all my arguments as being based on lies (they weren't. They were factually true).

You also showed via large size and red lettering that you consider my statement about switching being the major source of latency a lie and a proof of my ignorance. Interestingly I have clearly stated that switching INCLUDES protocol latency which YOU YOURSELF have proclaimed to be one of the two major things responsible for latency. Do you perhaps disagree with my definition of the term switching? (since otherwise you are calling yourself a liar)

Finally... in your sole argument on post http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33473492&postcount=156 you only pointed out my mistake about YOUR claim... you did not in any way address the meat of my argument which you have been proclaiming to be false.
All along my argument was a contrasting of switching vs distance; wherein I stated that switching accounts for the majority of latency, not distance. I further argued that protocol latency, incorrect routing (bouncing us to denmark to uk to us again), and other such delays fall under switching.
I argued that the actual physical distance between you and a service accounts for very few ms of the ping by itself (I haven't explicitly mentioned it but implied that if it is actually a far away service, then you need more hopes to reach it and switching accumulates even more of a delay). And you did not respond to it still... instead after bashing you over the head with your refusal to address my point your sole response was to correct my accidental strawman. Thanks. Now answer the actual argument which you have proclaimed to be all lies.

So lets see how it revises my argument.


Revises to be:
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 claimed that the majority of ping is from the protocol latency (which is a switching issue) and distance. I do not think distance playes a major role unless switching has been done improperly.
The example you provided showed it taking LESS than 1ms to bounce from 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.) which is pretty much all switching (mainly protocol latency) and not distance.

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 only indirectly involved here... because all that distance traveled is distance that should NOT 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.
That is not the only flaw in your posts and I don't want to hold you hand a take your posts apart argument by argument, I got better things to do.

So now that one lie is down, I return to this claim:
The vast majority of your ping is coming from switching.
PROVE IT!

And I might reply you again.
Post FUD like before...and I will ignore you.

Ball in your court.

That you then post a wall of text to cover up your MANY mistakes is just sad.

YOU were and are at fault...not ME :thumbsdown:
 

Imouto

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2011
1,241
2
81
If we remove things from a lot of arguemtns, we end up with cherrypicked fallacies.

You still havn't given me the name and game and console that runs 1080p @ 60 FPS.
How many times do I need to ask you for this?

I have already covered this here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33464414&postcount=113

You are going in circles.
Why should I answer to that question? I don't care if there is any 1080p@60fps console game and you shouldn't either. This service at such specs is not feasible and won't give any improvement on a tiny 720p frame even if you throw all the IQ and AA you want.

Once you're watching a +30" TV at a healthy distance it doesn't matter if you're watching a 720p h264 bluray or a 720p MPEG2 HDTV show, both will look the same. Why would matter more detailed textures, AF, AA and more thingies at 720p? It doesn't make any sense to throw that much IQ features at that resolution. It isn't a priority for console gamers, otherwise most of them would buy a gaming PC but as I said there's 200 million current gen consoles around and most of games are designed for them instead of PC.

Of course I'm running in circles since I'm answering a narrowminded guy that can't acknowledge what other ppl is saying.

You claim that this service may be the end of consoles and it isn't. It's miles away from being the end of consoles since it's targetting the current gen and the next one is in the oven. Moreover, it isn't potentially any better than the current gen.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Ridge Racer 7, PS3 launch title.
Wauw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlKTEmcj5Vg

Nice find...kinda proves my point about the I.Q. ;)

I do think needing an internet connection would be required to take advantage of GRID, yes.
Deflection detected.
Are all people with internet (mind you that your link also covers mobile 3G broadband) the customerbase yes/no?


My only argument is that your initial statement (consoles have identical latencies) was wrong. You made a claim, I refuted it, you demanded proof, I linked to data showing your claim to be dubious at best. Even a handful of users with 67ms response times invalidates your statement, that's the danger in making broad claims.
So you discard all the latencies over 100 ms in my link...classy.

Ignored...to much FUD taking up too much of my time...keep posting..some one in the red camp might believe you, I doubt most others will.
 

Mistwalker

Senior member
Feb 9, 2007
343
0
71
Actually that games TRIES to be 60 FPS at 1080p...but fails at times:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-rr7-the-1080p-dream-blog-entry
From the article: The drops in 1080p performance can be momentarily dramatic, but as an average overall across the whole video, frame rate is just over 59FPS somewhat justifying Namco Bandai's decision to go for the full 1080p experience... So some drops, but averaging 59+FPS. I suppose the fact that the game and hardware came out in 2006 is going to be ignored by you...

Deflection detected.
Are all people with internet (mind you that your link also covers mobile 3G broadband) the customerbase yes/no?
Please clarify what you're asking for. A "customer base" implies customers, which GRID does not have as it's currently in development. Do you mean "target demographic"?

So you discard all the latencies over 100 ms in my link...classy.
I very clearly did not. Are you reading the posts you're responding to? Read mine again, and this time realize that you have restated a falsity as fact twice, regardless of whether certain games measure in over 100 ms.

*thread got nice now, when you put all FUD'sters on ignore*
Now you've crossed the line from belligerent and condescending to thread-crapping. Please do not do this again.
 

Mistwalker

Senior member
Feb 9, 2007
343
0
71
Is there even any actual data on GRIDs latency aside from that marketing slide?
Doesn't look like it, that was the first "reveal" so to be expected I guess.

Hopefully we'll get a fuller demonstration and more detailed look at the tech at E3. Gaikai doesn't launch until December so Nvidia has plenty of time to tweak and refine.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,184
107
106
The only thing i could think of when i saw GRID was the original name for AIDS......................
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
4,846
1,233
136
Why would latency me more of a problem than with current multiplayer FPS?

In either way you need to connect to a server which has latency, it's only the data that differs (commands vs images).

The only issue hence is bandwidth or am I missing something?
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Why would latency me more of a problem than with current multiplayer FPS?

In either way you need to connect to a server which has latency, it's only the data that differs (commands vs images).

The only issue hence is bandwidth or am I missing something?
Not really...perhaps you are not just biased ;)
 

Mistwalker

Senior member
Feb 9, 2007
343
0
71
Why would latency me more of a problem than with current multiplayer FPS?

The only issue hence is bandwidth or am I missing something?
Compared to current online games? You have it right, bandwidth should be the only big change.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY