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

Trumpstyle said:

If Google is splitting the GPU performance in half (2 users per gpu) we should see games running at 1080p/60fps, 1440p/30fps or 4k/30fps with checkerboard rendering. This is PS4 games running at 1080p/30fps. The gpu in Stadia should be more capable than I listed but should be close enough.

The cpu is 2-3x stronger than the PS4 CPU depending how well games are optimized for multicores, this if it's a Intel Xeon 4core, 8thread cpu. We don't have a good way finding this out as the GPU will probably be the bottleneck in almost all scenarios. We should see it in Red dead redemption 2 though, performance should land around 52 average fps in more demanding cpu scenes in that game.

Soon eurogamer will probably have analysis of several games.

Virtualization doesn't work like that. The way instructions need to be assigned and executed in the complex GPU pipelines, each with different burst times, data fetches etc. would mean that each "half" would have far less computing power than it is theoretically available. And it would probably be readily noticed from frame time spikes and latency, a bit like what happens with dual GPUs but worse.

Not to mention that comercially speaking, two GPUs half the size of a larger one would have been a cheaper alternative considering how the costs for larger dies scale. Of course, I'm not saying is impossible that it could have happened, maybe Google did invest a lot on GPU resource scheduling and sharing (to little results), but it would seem super sloppy and amateurish even for the standards of the Stadia launch.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
Mr Puggsly said:
SvennoJ said:

onLive launched in 2011 when there were no pro consoles and console games ran in sub 720p. Stadia does look better than the base PS4. Diminishing returns also play a factor, which is actually helping streaming services. As long as it doesn't look much worse, most people won't care. Switch will soon be the most played console, xbox one x and ps4 pro users are a niche.

Anyway onLive was not financially viable, it's dead. I have no clue if PS Now is even profitable with the benefit of using their own hardware and games to save costs. Game pass certainly can't be profitable for publishers but it has put price expectations low.

It seems more like Stadia is here since Google has all these data centers with processing time left over :/
MS has Azure so they are good for hardware.
Sony has the most first party titles, they can save on that.

It will be interesting.

Stadia has launched a few years into premium consoles and they boasted specs well above them. Even if there is a poor optimization thing happening, I suspect the reality is users arent getting the advertized specs.

PS4 and X1 basically share the same market, given their library is very similar and they have similar games as top sellers. So I generally  lump them together as an audience. Therefore I dont see premium consoles them as a niche separate things per se. Frankly, Stadia is aiming for the exact same type of gamers that enjoy Playstation and Xbox.

Switch in comparison has a more unique audience. When you look at the games that really thrive on it, it has no direct competitor.

PS Now is probably profitable, but I doubt its making a big profit. I cant recall the exact amount but I think they said it had like 700k subscribers in a report before the price change and some major PS4 games were also added. Its also limited to 720p/60 fps so they arent sending out data like Stadia.

Gamepass cant be profitable for publishers? What is that based on?

Sony has a strong 1st party, but they come to PS Now late. I believe I read xCloud is going to have the enitre X1 library. Hence, xCloud is more like a real console being streamed versus a more curated experience of the competitors. If xCloud is ultimately curated, it will atleast have 1st party games at launch.

PSNow have passed 1M subs, but it still is under 2M.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

SvennoJ said:
eva01beserk said:
So the compression is only for data cap purposes? Would they allow a full inmage for thouse who can handle it? Maybe reviewers could take another crack at it. I mean its still pointless cuz if this is already toping data caps on first World nations. But then they can say "see we are good. It's you lowlife peasants and crappy internets."

4K60 10 bit color is 14,238 mbps or 13.9 Gb/s, nobody can handle that!
You need 35 mbps for 4K 60 with compression. That kind of sustained speed (no buffering option) is pretty difficult already.

4K blu-ray goes up to 100 mbps, digital cinema up to 250 mbps, however those have the advantage of time to optimize the encoding for quality and use variable bit rate, more bits for fast scenes. So even going up to 100 mbps for stadia won't make it look near as good as 4K blu-ray. It will get better as encoding hardware gets smarter and faster.

That's a very good point. For the experience to not feel too laggy, there needs to be less than 200 ms between the time you press a button on your controller and the time the input makes it's way to the Stadia box, processes the data, grabs the next frame, compresses it, sends it back, gets de-compressed on the user's end, and finally displayed on the screen. Only fast compression algorithms can be applied, and they are lossy.

I was optimistic about Stadia when it was first announced, back before we knew anything about pricing or their launch line-up. As someone else mentioned, until exclusives arrive, there is no good reason for me to bother playing on Stadia, as I already have the means to play every one of their games on other platforms, in an environment that isn't going to cut into my data cap and won't be inconsistent.

It could have been so much better.



Mr Puggsly said:

Stadia has launched a few years into premium consoles and they boasted specs well above them. Even if there is a poor optimization thing happening, I suspect the reality is users arent getting the advertized specs.

PS4 and X1 basically share the same market, given their library is very similar and they have similar games as top sellers. So I generally  lump them together as an audience. Therefore I dont see premium consoles them as a niche separate things per se. Frankly, Stadia is aiming for the exact same type of gamers that enjoy Playstation and Xbox.

Switch in comparison has a more unique audience. When you look at the games that really thrive on it, it has no direct competitor.

PS Now is probably profitable, but I doubt its making a big profit. I cant recall the exact amount but I think they said it had like 700k subscribers in a report before the price change and some major PS4 games were also added. Its also limited to 720p/60 fps so they arent sending out data like Stadia.

Gamepass cant be profitable for publishers? What is that based on?

Sony has a strong 1st party, but they come to PS Now late. I believe I read xCloud is going to have the enitre X1 library. Hence, xCloud is more like a real console being streamed versus a more curated experience of the competitors. If xCloud is ultimately curated, it will atleast have 1st party games at launch.

It's hard to believe that $120 a year for gamepass, spread over I don't know how many games, can be a good source of income for publishers other than MS. Besides that, a lot of people just get it now and then at discounts. I played a bunch of games with gamepass for $1. Nobody made money off that lol.



The problem is that you're paying 10$ a month to play in 4K when it doesn't even run at a 4K resolution. It's a lie from google and it makes the 10$ a month subscription pointless if it can't run games in 4K



Around the Network
haxxiy said:
Trumpstyle said:

If Google is splitting the GPU performance in half (2 users per gpu) we should see games running at 1080p/60fps, 1440p/30fps or 4k/30fps with checkerboard rendering. This is PS4 games running at 1080p/30fps. The gpu in Stadia should be more capable than I listed but should be close enough.

The cpu is 2-3x stronger than the PS4 CPU depending how well games are optimized for multicores, this if it's a Intel Xeon 4core, 8thread cpu. We don't have a good way finding this out as the GPU will probably be the bottleneck in almost all scenarios. We should see it in Red dead redemption 2 though, performance should land around 52 average fps in more demanding cpu scenes in that game.

Soon eurogamer will probably have analysis of several games.

Virtualization doesn't work like that. The way instructions need to be assigned and executed in the complex GPU pipelines, each with different burst times, data fetches etc. would mean that each "half" would have far less computing power than it is theoretically available. And it would probably be readily noticed from frame time spikes and latency, a bit like what happens with dual GPUs but worse.

Not to mention that comercially speaking, two GPUs half the size of a larger one would have been a cheaper alternative considering how the costs for larger dies scale. Of course, I'm not saying is impossible that it could have happened, maybe Google did invest a lot on GPU resource scheduling and sharing (to little results), but it would seem super sloppy and amateurish even for the standards of the Stadia launch.

Seems you know a lot about this stuff, but I don't see the issue. Here's a youtube video of a gpu running 6 games on a tesla V100. Why can't Google do similiar to AMD gpus?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzXnCuc9bAE

Edit: I just tested myself on my computer running Star wars: the old republic and World of warcraft at the same time in windows mode. No issue what so ever. They both ran 60fps/1440p at all times no frames drop what so ever.

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 21 November 2019

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

SvennoJ said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Stadia has launched a few years into premium consoles and they boasted specs well above them. Even if there is a poor optimization thing happening, I suspect the reality is users arent getting the advertized specs.

PS4 and X1 basically share the same market, given their library is very similar and they have similar games as top sellers. So I generally  lump them together as an audience. Therefore I dont see premium consoles them as a niche separate things per se. Frankly, Stadia is aiming for the exact same type of gamers that enjoy Playstation and Xbox.

Switch in comparison has a more unique audience. When you look at the games that really thrive on it, it has no direct competitor.

PS Now is probably profitable, but I doubt its making a big profit. I cant recall the exact amount but I think they said it had like 700k subscribers in a report before the price change and some major PS4 games were also added. Its also limited to 720p/60 fps so they arent sending out data like Stadia.

Gamepass cant be profitable for publishers? What is that based on?

Sony has a strong 1st party, but they come to PS Now late. I believe I read xCloud is going to have the enitre X1 library. Hence, xCloud is more like a real console being streamed versus a more curated experience of the competitors. If xCloud is ultimately curated, it will atleast have 1st party games at launch.

It's hard to believe that $120 a year for gamepass, spread over I don't know how many games, can be a good source of income for publishers other than MS. Besides that, a lot of people just get it now and then at discounts. I played a bunch of games with gamepass for $1. Nobody made money off that lol.

Well if millions subscribe which has been claimed, that becomes hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

More importantly, you're looking at Gamepass as a sole revenue stream. If that was the case than it would have a massive number of subscribers.

I assume many games can be acquired for Gamepass cheaply because they arent making much money. Thats the same reason Steam sells countless games for like a dollar. Hence, Gamepass and PS Now are primarily a collection of many games not making much money. That peppered with a few notable 3rd party games and 1st party content.

I'm sure MS pays more for a 3rd party game to launch on the service. Which they do often for indie games and other modest budget stuff.

Even when Gamepss gets a major 3rd party game its often months or longer post launch. Im sure publishers figure out the math before deciding if they should do it. Gamepass also brings more attention to a game or IP while bringing in revenue. Gold and PS+ are used the same.

People keep speaking as if content on Gamepass means the entire userbase is getting access to it. Gamepass at best is probably just a few million users. I also doubt everybody subscribes for a dollar.



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)

haxxiy said:
Trumpstyle said:

If Google is splitting the GPU performance in half (2 users per gpu) we should see games running at 1080p/60fps, 1440p/30fps or 4k/30fps with checkerboard rendering. This is PS4 games running at 1080p/30fps. The gpu in Stadia should be more capable than I listed but should be close enough.

The cpu is 2-3x stronger than the PS4 CPU depending how well games are optimized for multicores, this if it's a Intel Xeon 4core, 8thread cpu. We don't have a good way finding this out as the GPU will probably be the bottleneck in almost all scenarios. We should see it in Red dead redemption 2 though, performance should land around 52 average fps in more demanding cpu scenes in that game.

Soon eurogamer will probably have analysis of several games.

Virtualization doesn't work like that. The way instructions need to be assigned and executed in the complex GPU pipelines, each with different burst times, data fetches etc. would mean that each "half" would have far less computing power than it is theoretically available. And it would probably be readily noticed from frame time spikes and latency, a bit like what happens with dual GPUs but worse.

Not to mention that comercially speaking, two GPUs half the size of a larger one would have been a cheaper alternative considering how the costs for larger dies scale. Of course, I'm not saying is impossible that it could have happened, maybe Google did invest a lot on GPU resource scheduling and sharing (to little results), but it would seem super sloppy and amateurish even for the standards of the Stadia launch.

Well looks like you're indeed correct, Eurogamers says shadow of the tomb raider is native 4k on stadia. So they are not splitting the performance. Why stadia have so much worse performance then 10,7TF vega gpu we can only speculate. It can be cooling as you said and porting the games to stadia might be difficult. Can also be the OS Linux as looking at benchmarks there, games seems to lose between 5-20% performance.

So could be any of those 3 things I mention or maybe all of them.



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

SvennoJ said:
Hiku said:

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.

Skimmed through another lag test that was more comprehensive (explains all the equipment they used, and measured all the values).
Looks like there was a correlation between input lag and higher quality streams.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0gILReDQsY



Hiku said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

Skimmed through another lag test that was more comprehensive (explains all the equipment they used, and measured all the values).
Looks like there was a correlation between input lag and higher quality streams.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0gILReDQsY

It's so strange that when you put more fps to have a smoothier experience and faster reaction you increase lag so much.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."