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
Intrinsic said:

Exactly, and google works their magic and further compresses that to sound 50Mbs for a 4k, 60fps stream. 

I see the majority of people playing  at 720p or 1080p and telling themselves they are playing at 4k/60fps.

Yeah, but YouTube will buffer the video and (depending on your settings) adjust it's quality to keep it running smoothly. With Stadia that won't work, and if there is a dip in network speed for just a second, it will produce immediately noticeable problems with the stream. Just wanted to point that out. Playing a game in 4K and having the image go blurry for a second will be quite jarring

I do agree though that 50 Mbps will be enough for a 4K stream, but what I don't necessarily agree with is that compressing the data is an argument in favor of this. My biggest concern is image quality, and I have my doubts for as to how well this will perform. I've used PS Now, and while it's "passable" for many games, it's nowhere near good enough to be a replacement for standard console gaming. 

I want Stadia to have low-latency (where the latency is so low that it occurs before the frame is even drawn, making it negligible), and a crisp, RGB image. I really hope that this is achievable because if it is, this could be that leap forward to the next generation that I never thought we'd see again. PS3/360 -> PS4/Xbone did not feel like a major leap in performance, and I imagine the PS5/Nextbox to be similar.

Google is one of my favorite companies, so I am very excited that they are going all-in with this, and I would really like to see it succeed.



Around the Network
kirby007 said:
Eagle367 said:
I'll tell you when I understand it. It's supposed to be 1000Mbits down 100 up but sometimes I can't properly watch 240p. Thank Canada

What kind of device?

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



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

Eagle367 said:
kirby007 said:

What kind of device?

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😅



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

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.



RaptorChrist said:
Intrinsic said:

Exactly, and google works their magic and further compresses that to sound 50Mbs for a 4k, 60fps stream. 

I see the majority of people playing  at 720p or 1080p and telling themselves they are playing at 4k/60fps.

Yeah, but YouTube will buffer the video and (depending on your settings) adjust it's quality to keep it running smoothly. With Stadia that won't work, and if there is a dip in network speed for just a second, it will produce immediately noticeable problems with the stream. Just wanted to point that out. Playing a game in 4K and having the image go blurry for a second will be quite jarring

I do agree though that 50 Mbps will be enough for a 4K stream, but what I don't necessarily agree with is that compressing the data is an argument in favor of this. My biggest concern is image quality, and I have my doubts for as to how well this will perform. I've used PS Now, and while it's "passable" for many games, it's nowhere near good enough to be a replacement for standard console gaming. 

I want Stadia to have low-latency (where the latency is so low that it occurs before the frame is even drawn, making it negligible), and a crisp, RGB image. I really hope that this is achievable because if it is, this could be that leap forward to the next generation that I never thought we'd see again. PS3/360 -> PS4/Xbone did not feel like a major leap in performance, and I imagine the PS5/Nextbox to be similar.

Google is one of my favorite companies, so I am very excited that they are going all-in with this, and I would really like to see it succeed.

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. 



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:

I pay I believe $70 or $80 a month for that.

But why?

It's not even the speed, your speed is good (albeit not worth that much money) but the data cap? I'd absolutely detest paying for internet with a data cap. It sounds like a cap that you're not likely to ever reach, but it's still the principle of the matter!



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
shikamaru317 said:

I pay I believe $70 or $80 a month for that.

But why?

It's not even the speed, your speed is good (albeit not worth that much money) but the data cap? I'd absolutely detest paying for internet with a data cap. It sounds like a cap that you're not likely to ever reach, but it's still the principle of the matter!

No other decent option currently. Comcast is the sole provider of cable internet in my area. The only other options for me are paying $30 a month for 3 mbps DSL from Verizon (which is what I used to have, and it is too slow for multiplayer gaming), paying $90 a month for a 4G hotspot that has a 100GB data cap, and paying $60 a month for satellite internet that has a 10 GB datacap and huge ping times.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) back in the 2000's allowed Comcast to build up a monopoly on the cable market in the US, they spent over a decade buying out other smaller cable companies until they were huge, and they are currently the sole cable provider in many of their markets. I don't know their current marketshare, but as of 2011 they already had 40% of the cable market which made them #1 in the US. It was only because the FCC finally started cracking down on them that they raised their datacap from 300 GB to 1 TB. I could pay for unlimited data, but it costs an extra $50 a month and there's no I will pay that so that I can stream games when traditional consoles are still available. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 21 March 2019

shikamaru317 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

But why?

It's not even the speed, your speed is good (albeit not worth that much money) but the data cap? I'd absolutely detest paying for internet with a data cap. It sounds like a cap that you're not likely to ever reach, but it's still the principle of the matter!

No other decent option currently. Comcast is the sole provider of cable internet in my area. The only other options for me are paying $30 a month for 3 mbps DSL from Verizon (which is what I used to have, and it is too slow for multiplayer gaming) and paying $60 a month for satellite internet that has a 10 GB datacap and huge ping times.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) back in the 2000's allowed Comcast to build up a monopoly on the cable market in the US, they spent over a decade buying out other smaller cable companies until they were huge, and they are currently the sole cable provider in many of their markets. I don't know their current marketshare, but as of 2011 they already had 40% of the cable market which made them #1 in the US. It was only because the FCC finally started cracking down on them that they raised their datacap from 300 GB to 1 TB. I could pay for unlimited data, but it costs an extra $50 a month and there's no I will pay that so that I can stream games when traditional consoles are still available. 

Ouch!

The last UK internet I had only cost like 20 quid more to have unlimited data than the capped version. IIRC the capped version was included free with the phone line too, so paying an extra 20 quid on top of basically nothing wasn't bad at all.

Sounds like your government really screwed the people over there though. Isn't there supposed to be anti-monopoly laws and that kind of stuff to prevent exactly that kind of situation from happening?



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
shikamaru317 said:

No other decent option currently. Comcast is the sole provider of cable internet in my area. The only other options for me are paying $30 a month for 3 mbps DSL from Verizon (which is what I used to have, and it is too slow for multiplayer gaming) and paying $60 a month for satellite internet that has a 10 GB datacap and huge ping times.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) back in the 2000's allowed Comcast to build up a monopoly on the cable market in the US, they spent over a decade buying out other smaller cable companies until they were huge, and they are currently the sole cable provider in many of their markets. I don't know their current marketshare, but as of 2011 they already had 40% of the cable market which made them #1 in the US. It was only because the FCC finally started cracking down on them that they raised their datacap from 300 GB to 1 TB. I could pay for unlimited data, but it costs an extra $50 a month and there's no I will pay that so that I can stream games when traditional consoles are still available. 

Ouch!

The last UK internet I had only cost like 20 quid more to have unlimited data than the capped version. IIRC the capped version was included free with the phone line too, so paying an extra 20 quid on top of basically nothing wasn't bad at all.

Sounds like your government really screwed the people over there though. Isn't there supposed to be anti-monopoly laws and that kind of stuff to prevent exactly that kind of situation from happening?

Supposedly, but the government doesn't care about them anymore. Just look at everything they have allowed Disney to buy in recent years. Disney now owns:

-Walt Disney Animation Studios (Frozen, Moana, etc.)
-Walt Disney Pictures (Pirates of the Caribbean, live action animated Disney remakes)
-LucasFilm (Star Wars/Indiana Jones)
-Marvel
-Pixar
-20th Century Fox (Avatar, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Deadpool, Kingsman, Planet of the Apes, Alien, Predator, Die Hard, Independence Day, etc.)
-Blue Sky Studios (Ice Age, Rio, etc.)
-A 60% majority stake in tv streaming service Hulu
-National Geographic
-FX (tv network)

As it is, Disney already had a huge monopoly before this acquisition, they had 5 of the top 10 highest grossing movies of the year in 2016, 4/10 in 2017, and 3/10 in 2018, though if you include Fox movies from the top 10 that they now own, that number increases to 6/10 in 2016, and 5/10 in 2018. Don't be surprised at all if Disney has at least 5/10 of the highest grossing movies each year moving forward. In 2020 for instance, Disney is releasing Mulan live-action, 2 unannounced Marvel movies, Avatar 2, 2 unannounced Disney live-action movies (probably more adaptations of their animated pictures), and an unannounced Pixar movie, with rumors of the first movie in the Star Wars trilogy from the Game of Thrones producers. In 2021 Disney has scheduled 3 unannounced Marvel movies, 4 unannounced Disney live-action movies, an unannounced Disney animated movie, an unannounced Pixar movie, and Indiana Jones 5, with rumors of the first Star Wars movie in the Rian Johnson trilogy releasing. 

Ironically, Comcast, which already owns NBC and Universal, was competing with Disney to buy Fox and got outbid. 




Thru HTC 93.8 up 11 down