He's using a pc monitor, that shouldn't have much display lag. Bandwidth has nothing to do with latency. So either his internet is set up wrong, maybe playing through a vpn, or his isp sucks. There is no way a phone outperforms a pc in latency.

From the article: (where that video is from)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/reviews/unplayable-times-magical-others-stadias-dream-is-still-clouds/

On the phone, however, a totally different story emerges. While playing Destiny 2 in 60 fps on a Google Pixel 3a XL over a WiFi connection, there was almost no blurriness and barely any latency. Barring a few noticeable but quick skips during play, the images produced were fast and sharp on the phone’s 2160x1080 resolution screen.

These tests were conducted with my WiFi at home, which gave me anywhere from 45 to 55 Mbps download speeds, well above the 35 Mbps Google says should give me 60 frames-per-second movement in 4K resolution. They were also conducted on The Washington Post’s Gigabit Ethernet and WiFi service. In all cases, the phone outperformed the experience on browsers and TVs.

How was his wifi set up, did he play through a vpn. Again download speeds don't mean anything. Did he do a ping and jitter test.

Eurogamer did a real test
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2019-stadia-tech-review

Yet they admit trouble as well with their internet

We're focusing on the big screen primarily because right now at least, it is the only way to access Stadia's top-end video output - ultra HD at 60 frames per second with HDR support. However, actually accessing this does require some serious bandwidth. On a standard 30mbps fibre connection, it wasn't possible, even though the connection was rated as 'good' (look for a 'great' or 'excellent' rating to avoid issues). This may well be a limitation of my specific home connection - the reason we haven't produced coverage of Microsoft's xCloud yet is that UK ISP Sky seems to have an aversion to streaming platforms. I ended up moving to a Virgin Media connection (rated 'excellent') with a surfeit of bandwidth in order to get the job done. In terms of your connection, Google has a connection checker for determining the type of experience you're likely to get.

True, further tests would be useful. The game would also render faster if you go for the 1080p or 720p option, thus less latency at the source. If the game can render at 120 fps at 720p, while only sending half the frames, you still have cut the render time in half. In the case of a 30 fps game at 4K, that's 25 ms saved. Also compression and decompression will be faster at lower resolutions and bandwidth, as well as the transmission time per frame. It all adds up.

For all we know his PC could have been connected to his work network and he was playing through a vpn while his phone was communicating directly from his home router. And true, larger bandwidth stuff might make different routes. Video traffic usually buffers anyway so isps might be giving that low priority. For phones the isp would assume it could be a live video chat, who knows.

100MB per minutes is 13 mbps. Often my kids both have you tube running and netflix playing on the tv, 13 mbps isn't that much nowadays.

It's not meant for people with data caps, yet you can always upgrade to unlimited? I switched to unlimited since 500GB a month wasn't even enough anymore with everyone streaming video.

Perhaps it's aimed at the Chinese market where you can't play more than 1.5 hours a day anyway :)

Steaming games is even more expensive than buying a powerful PC . It will stay that forever until the world united under one ruler and the world united under one system and one Internet Policy and Internet cable spread around the world. Probably another 50 years or 100 years.

I am not joking. In my country people rarely has 10 Mb/s and the lag response is Ultra mega slow not including super slow upload time and unstable speed . Internet is still super expensive, and Google and Xcloud are targeting no one as consumer, people who has money will probably just play and buy local hardware , and people who don't have money will just wait and buy second cheap consoles or PC.

I'm sure the CPU for Stadia is better than consoles. But were they not forward thinking in CPU power or is RDR2 poorly optimized?

I mean its kinda odd its already struggling on specs.

I think it would help clear up some confusion if we get more FPS information in other games.

Regardless, its disappointing on GPU as well.

Wow.... it can apparently use over 20GB pr hour.
You need unlimited internet for this to be a thing, data caps and this just wont work.

"Who is this made for? With data usage like this it is useless for streaming to a phone due to the tiny data caps on mobile plans"

^ that.
No one (sane) has 1tb+ data cap for their mobile phones.

And if the point is to sit at home at a TV, then it falls short compaired to the current PS4/XB1.
its just a lesser experiance overall.

"Bungie later confirmed that our eyes weren’t deceiving us. “When streaming at 4K, we render at a native 1080p and then upsample and apply a variety of techniques to increase the overall quality of effect,” a Bungie rep said, adding that D2 runs at the PC equivalent of medium settings"

1080p, medium settings. Pretty damn terrible. Specs Wise Stadia shouldn't be far behind the PS5/Scarlett. Something very wrong here.

It's weird to see from this article that the problem isn't the streaming at all, it's the games themselves.

"What you’re looking at here isn’t bad streaming; the stream is 4K. Not only that, but it’s also some of the best streaming image quality I’ve seen, without loads of the nasty compression artifacts that make other cloud gaming services look like there’s an ugly haze between you and much of the game. Google told me that Stadia is designed to run games at the highest resolution with all of the settings turned up, but clearly, that isn’t happening here."

They can always add new hardware when hardware gets better / prices go down. They don't have to replace everything, yet at some point the premium games will get to run on premium hardware. The RDR2 port is probably poorly optimized, early launch title.

The advantage of streaming is that when it starts making money hardware can be added / upgraded at a regular basis, thus the premium subscriptions get better running games year after year. Just like my download speed has been increasing year over year without needing a new modem.

Developing for Linux isnt entirely new and its likely fairly standard PC specs as well. With the specs boasted about games should be looking and performing better.

When OnLive launched those specs trounced consoles. Google is a huge company, made big promises on specs and its looking like bullshit. You're suggesting they will upgrade later...

Are we absolutely certain this will be financially viable going this direction? Im also curious to see if developers care enough to keep porting games to work on Stadia.

The advantage MS and Sony have is their platforms already get great support. MS also has a great edge by having the most supported PC OS.

Im a fan of the streaming concept, I actually completed a few games via OnLIve years ago. But I dont like Stadia.