By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - RDR2 and Destiny 2 on Stadia run at lower resolutions than they do on XB1 X

SvennoJ said:
Hiku said:

In the video it didn't say there wasn't a problem on his phone. It said it wasn't as present on mobile.
I was able to pause the video after he pressed a button and see no action in the game, so it's still significant. Just not as bad as 1+ seconds long.

The reason for this isn't necessarily the internet connection. There's both input lag and display lag going on simultaneously. And while testing on mobile he is using both a different screen, and a different controller, that are all wired differently.

I'm also not sure what the settings are for mobile. Stadia may be outputting at lower resolutions for phones to save bandwidth.

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.

The input latency from PC monitors can vary drastically as well.

One monitor released in 2018 was tested to have an input latency of 33.4 ms for native resolutions. While an HP monitor released the same year had an input latency of only 2.6 ms. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

Though I wasn't suggesting that this was the major contributor for the lag, but that there are multiple factors adding up.

What I'm saying about the bandwith is that Google may be sending data of different bandwith volume through different routes.
In this case the data for the PC game may have been forced to travel a longer distance, making more hops before it reaches its destination.

And the paragraph you cited from Eurogamer makes it sound like higher resolutions may only be available for PC at the moment.
"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."

But whether that's the case or not, there's also the possibility of being able to chose.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 November 2019

Around the Network
Hiku said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

The input latency from PC monitors can vary drastically as well.

One monitor released in 2018 was tested to have an input latency of 33.4 ms for native resolutions. While an HP monitor released the same year had an input latency of only 2.6 ms. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

Though I wasn't suggesting that this was the major contributor for the lag, but that there are multiple factors adding up.

What I'm saying about the bandwith is that Google may be sending data of different bandwith volume through different routes.
In this case the data for the PC game may have been forced to travel a longer distance, making more hops before it reaches its destination.

And the paragraph you cited from Eurogamer makes it sound like higher resolutions may only available for PC at the moment.
"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."

But whether that's the case or not, there's also the possibility of being able to chose.

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.



SvennoJ said:
Hiku said:

The input latency from PC monitors can vary drastically as well.

One monitor released in 2018 was tested to have an input latency of 33.4 ms for native resolutions. While an HP monitor released the same year had an input latency of only 2.6 ms. https://www.rtings.com/monitor/tests/inputs/input-lag

Though I wasn't suggesting that this was the major contributor for the lag, but that there are multiple factors adding up.

What I'm saying about the bandwith is that Google may be sending data of different bandwith volume through different routes.
In this case the data for the PC game may have been forced to travel a longer distance, making more hops before it reaches its destination.

And the paragraph you cited from Eurogamer makes it sound like higher resolutions may only available for PC at the moment.
"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."

But whether that's the case or not, there's also the possibility of being able to chose.

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.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more comprehensive tests in the coming days. After seeing these preliminary tests I'm mainly curious if they'll find a common correlation between higher end options, and more latency issues. Which also makes me wonder how spread out Stadia's data centers are.
And if one data center has hardware that only focuses on 4K streaming, while another data center has hardware that only handles 1080p streams.

Though either way, it seems quite possible that you may be matched up to a data center further away because the ones near you happen to all be busy at the moment.

So essentially, during the Washington Post PC test, the closest available data center may have been further away than the one that was streaming to them during the mobile test.
Or perhaps they used different ISP's during the two tests, which may have resulted in the data taking unnecessary extra routes, depending on how the ISP handles its data.
The interesting thing there, if it's the ISP's fault, is that it may not even necessarily be a 'problem' with the ISP per say. As in, it's not something they can, or will, fix. But rather depending on how certain ISP's handle their data (some make extra stops between a parent company and the daughter company for example), you may have a bad experience with Google Stadia with ISP's that otherwise function well for you.

So this could potentially be an issue with Stadia that you can't predict until you test it out with any given ISP first.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 November 2019

thismeintiel said:
SpokenTruth said:

As I mentioned before, I think the game was supplied (ported) to Stadia by Rockstar, not Google. 

Aside from that, haven't we all learned from several examples to never judge a platform's capabilities by a launch title? 

There shouldn't really be any porting required. These are just (supposedly) powerful PCs running the game server side. Unless Stadia is using some crazy OS, it should run like the PC equivalent. Instead, it's running worse than the higher end consoles. My guess is their infrastructure isn't ready to do real-time 4K streaming. 

But, more importantly, it's freaking Google. They should have had this shit ready to go if they wanted to prove themselves in the serious gaming market. 

The Stadia OS is linux based, not Windows.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Hiku said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see more comprehensive tests in the coming days. After seeing these preliminary tests I'm mainly curious if they'll find a common correlation between higher end options, and more latency issues. Which also makes me wonder how spread out Stadia's data centers are.
And if one data center has hardware that only focuses on 4K streaming, while another data center has hardware that only handles 1080p streams.

Though either way, it seems quite possible that you may be matched up to a data center further away because the ones near you happen to all be busy at the moment.

So essentially, during the Washington Post PC test, the closest available data center may have been further away than the one that was streaming to them during the mobile test.
Or perhaps they used different ISP's during the two tests, which may have resulted in the data taking unnecessary extra routes, depending on how the ISP handles its data.
The interesting thing there, if it's the ISP's fault, is that it may not even necessarily be a 'problem' with the ISP per say. As in, it's not something they can, or will, fix. But rather depending on how certain ISP's handle their data (some make extra stops between a parent company and the daughter company for example), you may have a bad experience with Google Stadia. In other words, this may be very common, even with ISP's you'd normally perceive as functioning well for you.

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.



Around the Network

https://venturebeat.com/2019/11/19/google-stadia-data-usage/

Wow. Over 100MB per minute for a 1080p stream that offers the equivalent of 720p graphics on local hardware. 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, and even on a home internet connection this could easily put you over your monthly data allowance if you game alot, especially the 4K streams.



shikamaru317 said:

https://venturebeat.com/2019/11/19/google-stadia-data-usage/

Wow. Over 100MB per minute for a 1080p stream that offers the equivalent of 720p graphics on local hardware. 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, and even on a home internet connection this could easily put you over your monthly data allowance if you game alot, especially the 4K streams.

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.



SvennoJ said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Well you've a good job make this topic about yourself.

But here's the rub. Stadia was marketed for having vastly superior specs than consoles, X1X included. In theory those specs create the expectation of maybe 4K and 60 fps.

This is actually good news for MS and Sony. Their streaming services werent making big visual promises like Stadia. Therefore the disparity isnt going to be as big as expected.

Personally the resolution doesent bug me, but the 30 fps cap is bullshit. It was marketed for its power, its not demonstrating what was advertised.

Early days, early games and you conveniently ignore this

Destiny 2 is perfectly playable on Stadia and delivers the 60fps experience that Xbox One X cannot

60 fps for a streaming service is pretty good, that with lower latency than a lot of 30 fps games on console. (Yeah latency is still 44ms higher for this game compared to the console version, not bad but still noticeable)

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.



Recently Completed
River City: Rival Showdown
for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

shikamaru317 said:

https://venturebeat.com/2019/11/19/google-stadia-data-usage/

Wow. Over 100MB per minute for a 1080p stream that offers the equivalent of 720p graphics on local hardware. 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, and even on a home internet connection this could easily put you over your monthly data allowance if you game alot, especially the 4K streams.

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.

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 20 November 2019