Quantcast
Digital Foundry : Google Stadia Specs Analysis + Exclusive Performance Testing

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Digital Foundry : Google Stadia Specs Analysis + Exclusive Performance Testing

Are cloud gaming the future of gaming ?

Yes 16 30.19%
 
No 19 35.85%
 
Somehow 11 20.75%
 
Not Quite 7 13.21%
 
Total:53
Pemalite said:

The latency is probably not going to be an issue for everyone. - And yet, latency is going to be a catastrophic issue for some, physically the closest Google server for me is half a continent away.

The compression artifacts that reduce visuals is also not going to be an issue for everyone, if everyone cared about visuals, everyone would be a PC Gamer and the Wii wouldn't have been the success it was.

I think it will be interesting to see where Google takes this... With Vega 56 levels of GPU grunt backing it, it might just surprise... But one thing is for sure, if anyone is able to take the fight to Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and potentially be successful... It's Google.

And no two ways about it, this is likely the future of gaming, just not for me though. I like my games rendered locally.

Yeah, it's a 56CU GPU, but too fast for it. I'm wondering if they are using MI50 with 4 deactivated CU instead, as that would fit performance wise.

But what intrigues me more is the CPU. 9.5MB of combined L2+L3 cache is both a very weird number and an awfully low amount of CPU cache nowadays. Also, I couldn't find a chip with those specs, no Core, no Xeon, no Ryzen or Epyc fits the description. My guess is it's based on a Coffee Lake Xeon E 2176M, but with less L3 cache (8 instead of 12MB, with the missing 1.5MB coming from the 256KiB per core) and probably lower boost clocks (only the all-core boost really matters in servers anyway).



Around the Network
Lafiel said:
pretty good input lag performance on DF's test there, keeping up with a local X1X (both running the game in 30fps)

 Keep in mind they were using a net connection that was 200MBps, that's 8 times faster than 200Mbps btw, so ... yeah around 16 times what I have right now.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

Pemalite said:
shikamaru317 said:

Northern Australia? I found it curious when looking at their map today that they don't have a single edge node in the northern half of Australia. India was also missing nodes, which is strange since it is a quickly growing gaming market. 

I am in South Australia, but close enough.

Looking at Googles edge node map, seems a node was installed in Adelaide, so they are getting closer... But because I live in a rural area, I'll never have one physically near me, this continent is vast.

I'm gonna have to wait a bit, but Google is starting to build one of it's biggest datacenters and nodes in Luxembourg. Once it's ready, it would be less than 20 kilometers away from my home, but until then, Frankfurt or Paris would have to do.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Pemalite said:

The latency is probably not going to be an issue for everyone. - And yet, latency is going to be a catastrophic issue for some, physically the closest Google server for me is half a continent away.

The compression artifacts that reduce visuals is also not going to be an issue for everyone, if everyone cared about visuals, everyone would be a PC Gamer and the Wii wouldn't have been the success it was.

I think it will be interesting to see where Google takes this... With Vega 56 levels of GPU grunt backing it, it might just surprise... But one thing is for sure, if anyone is able to take the fight to Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft and potentially be successful... It's Google.

And no two ways about it, this is likely the future of gaming, just not for me though. I like my games rendered locally.

Yeah, it's a 56CU GPU, but too fast for it. I'm wondering if they are using MI50 with 4 deactivated CU instead, as that would fit performance wise.

But what intrigues me more is the CPU. 9.5MB of combined L2+L3 cache is both a very weird number and an awfully low amount of CPU cache nowadays. Also, I couldn't find a chip with those specs, no Core, no Xeon, no Ryzen or Epyc fits the description. My guess is it's based on a Coffee Lake Xeon E 2176M, but with less L3 cache (8 instead of 12MB, with the missing 1.5MB coming from the 256KiB per core) and probably lower boost clocks (only the all-core boost really matters in servers anyway).

Definitely Vega 56 with different clocks. Instinct's bandwidth is far to high.
CPU could be anything... Not really enough information to make a definitive answer, parts of the cache could be deactivated for various reasons. (Power, Reliability, Yields etc'.)



Sure the GPU isn't from their pro range?



Around the Network
gemini_d@rk said:
Its a beta test in 2018, no?

you probably should watch te video

Lafiel said:
pretty good input lag performance on DF's test there, keeping up with a local X1X (both running the game in 30fps)

Idk..... but I will just say this. There is no way that something that is running locally will be worse or the same with something that needs to go out and come back to your display. Its just not possible. Especially if dealing with comparable hardware. 

kirby007 said:
Now that i watched the full video latency being on par with xbx, OP u biased much?

This is probably a bias making you see only what you want to see type thing.



If anyone can pull off streamed gaming at the highest possible quality and convenience it's google. Let's see and watch if they do.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

I want physical hardware.

I dont care if input lag is only 20 ms worse or so, when streaming, its 20 ms too much.
I dont want compression artifacts, due to streaming and compression, when its not needed if you just had physical hardware.
I dont want to pay a subscription, have games locked behinde it. (I want a box that plays games, even 10years from now if I feel like it)

I really hope streaming isnt the future of gaming.
I believe a physical box will always be able to have a slight edge, when it comes to Image Quality + latency, and theres some die hard collectors out there that will want a physical box + disc too. So hopefully a physical box isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

But Im slightly worried now that everyone seems to be putting so much focus on streaming.
Is it really needed?

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 20 March 2019

Number of days to reach 50M from 40M : 198 days
Number of days to reach 60M from 50M : 187 days
Number of days to reach 70M from 60M : 175 days
Number of days to reach 80M from 70M : 227 days

Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249

JRPGfan said:

I want physical hardware.

I dont care if input lag is only 20 ms worse or so, when streaming, its 20 ms too much.
I dont want compression artifacts, due to streaming and compression, when its not needed if you just had physical hardware.
I dont want to pay a subscription, have games locked behinde it. (I want a box that plays games, even 10years from now if I feel like it)

I really hope streaming isnt the future of gaming.
I believe a physical box will always be able to have a slight edge, when it comes to Image Quality + latency, and theres some die hard collectors out there that will want a physical box + disc too. So hopefully a physical box isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

But Im slightly worried now that everyone seems to be putting so much focus on streaming.
Is it really needed?

Publishers are really interesting in getting full control over the distribution of games, and even digital only is becoming too unruly for them. Streaming guarantees full control of their software (always online by default, no piracy, no ownership of the software bought, no competition with older and cheaper software, the ability to erase one game from existence if they needed to...). Considering how long they've been campaigning against physical media, it's no wonder this "Netflix of videogames" is getting so much interest on their part.

Of course, this is all incredibly dangerous on a consumer level. We'd be at the mercy of big publishers, and that has proven harmful to the extreme in regards of consumer rights.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Darwinianevolution said:
JRPGfan said:

I want physical hardware.

I dont care if input lag is only 20 ms worse or so, when streaming, its 20 ms too much.
I dont want compression artifacts, due to streaming and compression, when its not needed if you just had physical hardware.
I dont want to pay a subscription, have games locked behinde it. (I want a box that plays games, even 10years from now if I feel like it)

I really hope streaming isnt the future of gaming.
I believe a physical box will always be able to have a slight edge, when it comes to Image Quality + latency, and theres some die hard collectors out there that will want a physical box + disc too. So hopefully a physical box isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

But Im slightly worried now that everyone seems to be putting so much focus on streaming.
Is it really needed?

Publishers are really interesting in getting full control over the distribution of games, and even digital only is becoming too unruly for them. Streaming guarantees full control of their software (always online by default, no piracy, no ownership of the software bought, no competition with older and cheaper software, the ability to erase one game from existence if they needed to...). Considering how long they've been campaigning against physical media, it's no wonder this "Netflix of videogames" is getting so much interest on their part.

Of course, this is all incredibly dangerous on a consumer level. We'd be at the mercy of big publishers, and that has proven harmful to the extreme in regards of consumer rights.

"no ownership of the software bought."
"no competition with older and cheaper software."
"the ability to erase one game from existence if they needed to."


Yep no way Id go streaming for games.



Number of days to reach 50M from 40M : 198 days
Number of days to reach 60M from 50M : 187 days
Number of days to reach 70M from 60M : 175 days
Number of days to reach 80M from 70M : 227 days

Necro-bump this 2020: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=229249