Quantcast
What is everyone's Internet speed like? (In relation to Google Stadia being announced...)

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What is everyone's Internet speed like? (In relation to Google Stadia being announced...)

What's your internet speed?

Less than 10mbps 15 11.19%
 
10-50 mbps 38 28.36%
 
50-100 mbps 35 26.12%
 
100-300 mbps 35 26.12%
 
300-900 mbps 7 5.22%
 
900+ mbps 4 2.99%
 
Total:134

Thru HTC 93.8 up 11 down

Around the Network
Intrinsic said:

Believe me you are preaching to the choir.

The whole compression thing wasn't my point but rather Kirby's point to counter mine of how we will need at least 50Mbs to maintain a steady 4k stream.

And that is assuming yo have a rock solid connection because as you said a slight dip even for a second from what your speeds should be will instantly result to your rez dropping down to like 720p or even lower to compensate. Because unlike video streaming there is no buffering with game streaming. No matter what google does, they cannot account or the innumerable variances in peoples connection quality and the only way this is circumvented is by brute forcing on the end of the end user.

Basically, what you want is to have double to triple the connection speed you actually need for the service. So if you need like 50Mbs for a 4k@60fps stream, you probably should be on an 80Mbs to 100Mbs network. That wa when tose network fluctuations happen (and they will) you are still above what you need to be to maintain your stream.

In the real world what will end up happening is that majority of the users out there will be streaming at 720p/1080p max. Which isn't the end of the world but is a far cry from all goggles talk aut 4k@60fps like everyone lives in their rosed garden. I really don't think a lot here understand just how hard this is to pull off, especially when 70% of the issue are all going to be on the users side of things where google can't do a thing about.

Game streaming is one of those things that sounds nice, great and modern that everyone may think we need.... but like VR its coming waaay too early to be anything but a niche. There is a reason why everyone that's done it before and are still doing it hasn't made any real traction. 

Pretty much my thoughts. But what I am wondering about is whether or not it actually is too early. While watching the conference, I was extremely impressed with the offerings they had. I didn't think we were at the point yet where a company could be capable of the power needed to run a game at 4K@60 while also streaming it's output; that came as such a surprise to me and was the turning point in where I changed my opinion from negative to positive towards Stadia.

Having a cloud-based infrastructure allows Google to rapidly build up a collection of these Stadia drives and serve a large number of people (as they only need as many as their are concurrent users). I live in the US, and internet speeds here (and probably everywhere I would guess) increase at a relatively quick pace. I have a 250 Mbps connection today. Last year I was at 75 Mbps. A year before that it was like 40 Mbps. I live near Chicago, so maybe that's why.

One thing I do disagree with is bashing Google for offering 4K. I'm not sure where that was derived. If that was just a flippant remark you made as a negative reaction to the product, then that's fine, but there are plenty of people with the capability of streaming in 4K. I guess you have to ask yourself if your opinion would have been different had it been a product from Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

In general, though, we are pretty much in agreement.



RaptorChrist said:
Intrinsic said:

Believe me you are preaching to the choir.

The whole compression thing wasn't my point but rather Kirby's point to counter mine of how we will need at least 50Mbs to maintain a steady 4k stream.

And that is assuming yo have a rock solid connection because as you said a slight dip even for a second from what your speeds should be will instantly result to your rez dropping down to like 720p or even lower to compensate. Because unlike video streaming there is no buffering with game streaming. No matter what google does, they cannot account or the innumerable variances in peoples connection quality and the only way this is circumvented is by brute forcing on the end of the end user.

Basically, what you want is to have double to triple the connection speed you actually need for the service. So if you need like 50Mbs for a 4k@60fps stream, you probably should be on an 80Mbs to 100Mbs network. That wa when tose network fluctuations happen (and they will) you are still above what you need to be to maintain your stream.

In the real world what will end up happening is that majority of the users out there will be streaming at 720p/1080p max. Which isn't the end of the world but is a far cry from all goggles talk aut 4k@60fps like everyone lives in their rosed garden. I really don't think a lot here understand just how hard this is to pull off, especially when 70% of the issue are all going to be on the users side of things where google can't do a thing about.

Game streaming is one of those things that sounds nice, great and modern that everyone may think we need.... but like VR its coming waaay too early to be anything but a niche. There is a reason why everyone that's done it before and are still doing it hasn't made any real traction. 

Pretty much my thoughts. But what I am wondering about is whether or not it actually is too early. While watching the conference, I was extremely impressed with the offerings they had. I didn't think we were at the point yet where a company could be capable of the power needed to run a game at 4K@60 while also streaming it's output; that came as such a surprise to me and was the turning point in where I changed my opinion from negative to positive towards Stadia.

Having a cloud-based infrastructure allows Google to rapidly build up a collection of these Stadia drives and serve a large number of people (as they only need as many as their are concurrent users). I live in the US, and internet speeds here (and probably everywhere I would guess) increase at a relatively quick pace. I have a 250 Mbps connection today. Last year I was at 75 Mbps. A year before that it was like 40 Mbps. I live near Chicago, so maybe that's why.

One thing I do disagree with is bashing Google for offering 4K. I'm not sure where that was derived. If that was just a flippant remark you made as a negative reaction to the product, then that's fine, but there are plenty of people with the capability of streaming in 4K. I guess you have to ask yourself if your opinion would have been different had it been a product from Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

In general, though, we are pretty much in agreement.

Chicago is also the first city to get 5G. Most people do not get those kind of speeds.



10 Mbps. No data cap at least. This is shared with family. Usually closer to 3 Mbps for what I can use.



CladInShadows said:
I have Telus 75, which generally gets me:
Ping: 3-4ms
Download: 75-80Mb/s
Upload - ~20Mb/s

But the Telus guys came to my door the other day saying they were gonna run the fiber optic cable to my house, so I guess I'll have to see what speeds are offered after that. I wouldn't mind throwing down extra money for a gigabit connection.

They upgraded here last year. 300 is still max.



Around the Network
Screenshot said:
CladInShadows said:
I have Telus 75, which generally gets me:
Ping: 3-4ms
Download: 75-80Mb/s
Upload - ~20Mb/s

But the Telus guys came to my door the other day saying they were gonna run the fiber optic cable to my house, so I guess I'll have to see what speeds are offered after that. I wouldn't mind throwing down extra money for a gigabit connection.

They upgraded here last year. 300 is still max.

What city are you in?  Edmonton here.



I think for Google, the latency issues will be tackled with game design.

Some games, like JRPGs and old Adventure games, don't need a super fast response. Many games can be created around these issues.

Of course, it's not gonna be a great service from day one. But I believe it will get there eventually. Stadia is a very powerful platform, and I don't mean in just horsepower. I think it's gonna go very far.



kirby007 said:
Eagle367 said:

Laptops, smartphones, whenever I rarely watch on my switch. That's all the screens I have though. And the modem is some ZTE one and uses fiber optics

Was going to say not being able to stream 240p must be a device issue but could be modem related if it happens on multiple devices. Because with that supposed speed you should be able to stream multiple 4k movies at once😅

It works but not everytime. So I can go from 8k to 240p depending on I don't know what. It's the network, no quality, no optimization. In pakistan I had less speed like 10mbps, but I always had 10mbps unless something happens, but in Canada it's upto 1000Mbps which apparently means you aksaget less than 5mbps sometimed



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

ThatDreamcastTho said:
RaptorChrist said:

Pretty much my thoughts. But what I am wondering about is whether or not it actually is too early. While watching the conference, I was extremely impressed with the offerings they had. I didn't think we were at the point yet where a company could be capable of the power needed to run a game at 4K@60 while also streaming it's output; that came as such a surprise to me and was the turning point in where I changed my opinion from negative to positive towards Stadia.

Having a cloud-based infrastructure allows Google to rapidly build up a collection of these Stadia drives and serve a large number of people (as they only need as many as their are concurrent users). I live in the US, and internet speeds here (and probably everywhere I would guess) increase at a relatively quick pace. I have a 250 Mbps connection today. Last year I was at 75 Mbps. A year before that it was like 40 Mbps. I live near Chicago, so maybe that's why.

One thing I do disagree with is bashing Google for offering 4K. I'm not sure where that was derived. If that was just a flippant remark you made as a negative reaction to the product, then that's fine, but there are plenty of people with the capability of streaming in 4K. I guess you have to ask yourself if your opinion would have been different had it been a product from Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft.

In general, though, we are pretty much in agreement.

Chicago is also the first city to get 5G. Most people do not get those kind of speeds.

Interesting, I didn't know anything about that. What is the average speed then in the US? I'm reading on this page here:

https://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2018/fixed/

And it looks as though the average speed in the US is close to 100 Mbps, but that seems much too high. It looks like in the last year, there was an average download speed increase of 38%. US ranks #7 for download speeds (much lower at 27th for uploads). It also says that something like 75% are capable of 4K video (as of Q3/Q4 2018).

I didn't think the average was that high, but at the same time I didn't think it was as low as 5 Mbps like I feel as though someone else had said at one point. Something that I considered was that perhaps these average speeds aren't conducted at a consumer level, and so they take into account places like McDonalds and Starbucks. If that were the case, it might bring the average speed down as you can find free internet in a lot of places but are restricted to very low speeds (like 5 Mbps).



90 mb up
90 mb down

I don't pay for it specifically, it's included in my student accommodation in the UK.