General Discussions

[drakgoku]

Hello,

Nvidia Geforce Now, wants to take control of the games in the cloud, with graphics TeslaP100 / P40, maybe in some future RTX.

Is there an AMD cloud platform?, AMD will take action ?, or simply give control of monopoly to NVIDIA? (As happened with Fortnite and Pubg).

Regards.

[drakgoku]

It is not a simple question. You may not have noticed, but it is a very important issue, for when you realize, there will be no going back.

  We let NVIDIA win? well.

[leyvin]

AMD should let NVIDIA waste their Resources.

Cloud Gaming in blunt terms is simply not viable., not because it's not possible to create Cloud Servers capable of running said Games but because it's actually exceptionally difficult to provide Low-Latency and Uninterrupted Video Feed via Networks.

Even Local Solutions, such-as Steam Link, Xbox Streaming and PlayStation Link are... well they're "Playable", but even on a 5G Network / 1Gb Ethernet., Video Compression is still noticeable, regardless if you're playing 1080p / 1440p / 2160p Games; plus the Input and Audio Latency are like playing at 20-30FPS regardless of the actual Video Playback., this is of course assuming there's no interruption of service; such-as your Mobile Phone goes off causing Signal Noise.

And I mention 5G as while personally I play Online Games via Ethernet., most Gamers don't, and for a Cloud Service where your PC Performance doesn't matter... well it's more likely to be used by people on Laptops (unable to upgrade and / or really play anything but Overwatch, LOL and Fortnight, even then it's arguable about performance lol) then this is going to be the key demographic who'll be exclusively on 2G / 3G / 5G Networks; which increases Latency and is less than ideal for Streamed Video. Sure it works for a Mobile Phone with it's 6" Screen., but for a 13-17" Laptop or 22 - 40" TV? That's a different ballgame.

I recall when I was at Microsoft, because Sony (PlayStation) were introducing such a service the idea was being toyed with and there were even several established Cloud / Streamed Gaming Services that were being wooed. Still after trying each out, and bare in mind this was on Corporate 1.5Gb Hardlines… it just wasn't good enough., and as the majority of the Gaming Market is on 20-30Mb Connections using 2G WiFi, their experiences are just going to be awful.

As a result, internally it was decided to instead that the Xbox XDK would re-implement the DirectX 9.0c Feature of "Streaming Resources"., where-in a Game could basically background stream assets (and installation data) as the gamers were playing; something that became popularised for MMORPGs like World of Warcraft, so you could download the minimum 2-4GB instead of the whole 50GB+ of the game before you could start playing. This I'd argue was (and still is) a far better option, while Game Streaming is gradually improved with the networking to better support it.

I'd argue that Steam Link and Xbox Game Streaming remain the *best* options., as locally you don't have any latency or NAT issues from IPv4 Networks., maybe once all ISP are IPv6 and the concept of NATs is a distant memory... maybe then, but as it stands the technology is still far too developmental (like VR in many ways) to really start pouring Billions in investment of Systems and Infrastructure. We're still at best a decade away from a viable solution, and this is assuming that ISPs begin to actually improve their Networks and Services., which I wouldn't count on given how hard they were pushing PIPA and SOPA in order to LIMIT and set Premiums on Gaming or other such Bandwidth intensive activities not from them.

[drakgoku]

Hello leyvin,

you have and you are not right.

I remember a documentary where in 2010 they said that the most important thing was the cloud. Cloud would be another era like when the INTERNET came out. 8 years later today, they are still right. We talk about being able to run a GAMING computer on an average computer of 200-300 euros or even less.

You are right in: "Because it's actually exceptionally difficult to provide Low-Latency and Uninterrupted Video Feed via Networks."

Today, where everything is governed by cloud computing (mobile numbers, files, etc.), this will undoubtedly be a big step for computers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2qsrlvhB3Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zceUpFI16UE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UllQVSS_JK4

Even I have tried it, and it is not bad at all and I continue to test it. Ryzen 2400G and I can play Fortnite full HD and record in HD (100-300fps in game), with the CPU at 50% and the gpu at 50%. I definitely opted for this option, as a gamer.

All this reminds me of how the rector acts saying that he owned the treasure of the film, "The Social Network", here he showed that he could not see beyond a masterly idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3JtmZugzl4

I think AMD could win market with this. Each company is free to decide what to do with its resources. Since 2006, thinking that AMD would be better than NVIDIA, and this 2018 got it with battlefield v https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/07/04/amd-destroys-nvidia-in-battlefield-5-mainstre..., but now I see the opposite with this from the cloud . Anyway, good job.

Sorry for my English.

Regards.

[drakgoku]

AMD saw beyond. (Although surely, AMD was already working hard with this project)

https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-is-working-with-amd-towards-a-new-era-of-cloud-gaming/

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd-microsoft-cloud-console

[hardcoregames_]

both links are broken, got some more stable resources to share?

AMD is best value for low cost desktop machines for gaming. A low cost $79 motherboard with a $139 CPU and a couple of 4GB sticks of RAM and you are ready to go.

AMD integrated graphics are actually playable to some extent with older games

[drakgoku]

The links are not broken. Copy and paste them without clicking

[drakgoku]

This thread goes to the bosses of AMD, not to fans of video games, because they have no idea how the market works.

Do not listen to the community say nonsense. The cloud is what will prevail.

It has been fortunate that some bosses with vision have already started working with the cloud.

[leyvin]

The Cloud will not "Prevail" … not in the way you're thinking.

AMD clearly understands this as they're products are geared towards "On-Site" Clouds as opposed to simply supporting established or creating their own Cloud Service.

And there is a reason for this., Data Control. 

Not just from the Individuals perspective of their Online Presence and Safety but also in regards to Business' who want to keep their Data as Secure as Possible; which frankly is only realistically possible WHEN your Cloud Service is internally accessed with the Access Point being Gated or Abstracted to where the Data is never actually held by the Requester; and only used internally as much as possible. 

The same though is true in regards to Services for Servers. 

It's better for Control to have a Core Internal Set of Servers; that are merely being augmented in Scale by the Bigger Services. 

Beyond this in terms of Game Streaming., look doesn't matter WHO gets into it; you can't break Physics or established Infrastructures that remain behind (quite far in the case of the most of the US / EU) to "Deliver Good Experiences"

I've said it before for things like Stadia, but while I might have an "Okay" experience with such … and sure I have decent experience with Xbox / Steam Streaming on my internet Network; it's still not even close to as High Fidelity or Flawless on a LOCAL High-Performance Connection as just playing it on the Actual Hardware. Throw in a Bluetooth / WiFi Controller and well that's going to be an awful experience that in Theory sounds Awesome but in Practise is just far below what you'd expect. 

Just because everyone is trying to jump on the band wagon, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[pokester]

What a shame if you are talking to AMD management. I have only seen 3 AMD mods in these forums EVER. I don't think beyond them AMD sees what is voiced here. 

[drakgoku]

I come from the future ...

Thanks GOOGLE STADIA.

And those who said it was not a good idea, well ... what can a simple player who does not own a company think?

With the passage of time, STADIA, will take more prestige and better infrastructures, which over time will be noticed, to have an almost tangible computer in the cloud.

Simply, good job, it was time for the bosses to think a little.

Sorry for my english.

Regards from Spain.

[drakgoku]

I am reading again the comments of this post of the "fans and players" without knowledge of the market and how a company really works.

Anyway, NVIDIA (Geforce now) again tries to lead the world of cloud.

Luckily, Microsoft thought about how to do things right.

Good luck to AMD and fans who have no idea of the economic market.

[kingfish]

2K Is the Latest Publisher to Pull Games From Nvidia's GeForce Now Service - ExtremeTech 

[hardcoregames_]

kingfish wrote:

2K Is the Latest Publisher to Pull Games From Nvidia's GeForce Now Service - ExtremeTech 

All of the streaming services have the same problem. Fiber based high speed internet is very expensive.

[kingfish]

 You should read the article:

"These companies didn’t have any problem with GeForce Now when it was in beta, but now that Nvidia is charging money? Suddenly, there’s publisher drama. Since Nvidia doesn’t sell the games, it’s not required to provide access to them. When publishers ask Nvidia to remove them, it does so and announces the change on its forums. Angry gamers can complain to the publishers, but nothing will come of that. After all, they still technically own the games and can play them on a local machine. 

While we don’t know for sure what’s happening behind the scenes, it seems likely 2K, Bethesda, and the others want a piece of the action from GeForce Now subscriptions. However, this isn’t a “Netflix for games.” People are trying to play games they already own, and Nvidia is just letting them use its hardware to run them. Still, Nvidia doesn’t want to burn any bridges, and that leaves gamers in the lurch.

[hardcoregames_]

kingfish wrote:

 You should read the article:

"These companies didn’t have any problem with GeForce Now when it was in beta, but now that Nvidia is charging money? Suddenly, there’s publisher drama. Since Nvidia doesn’t sell the games, it’s not required to provide access to them. When publishers ask Nvidia to remove them, it does so and announces the change on its forums. Angry gamers can complain to the publishers, but nothing will come of that. After all, they still technically own the games and can play them on a local machine. 

While we don’t know for sure what’s happening behind the scenes, it seems likely 2K, Bethesda, and the others want a piece of the action from GeForce Now subscriptions. However, this isn’t a “Netflix for games.” People are trying to play games they already own, and Nvidia is just letting them use its hardware to run them. Still, Nvidia doesn’t want to burn any bridges, and that leaves gamers in the lurch.

I read that already and like I said, all streaming services have to contend for bandwidth. Netflix is to choppy too for 4K.

My ISP is bringing in more fiber so maybe that will help?

[pokester]

I have had no issues with Netflix playback. I can play it just fine with my PC, Roku 4K Stick and my Samsung TV Netflix app. I am on cable internet so those on DSL may have issues but that is not a 4K issue it is their choice or availability of ISP. 

[drakgoku]

It is normal for those who have responded to this post in 2018-2019 to not reply to this post again. Because they have been a little "ridiculous".

When you have no idea what "CLOUD" is like and how it can grow, you only think of the "local machine". Poor minds can only think that.

Then the visionaries hold the reins, while others watch.

@hardcoregames

"All streaming services have the same problem. High-speed fiber-based Internet is very expensive."

What year do you live in? I tell you, in 2020 there is (take paper and pencil, in case you are in 2006)

Depends on the promotion.
- 1 GB, 600 MB, 500 MB, 300 MB of Internet (35 - 55 euros)

Who are you kidding? to yourself? or to others?

It is normal that when "users" have no idea of economics and computing, they say what they said.

When AMD realizes that GFN has a monopoly, it will be too late. (like the coronavirus book)

While the leading companies (Microsoft, Google and others) prosper.

For my part I say goodbye here.

By the way, I will not read the comments, it is not worth my time.
Good luck AMD listening to these guys ..

[leyvin]

What year do you live in? I tell you, in 2020 there is (take paper and pencil, in case you are in 2006)

Depends on the promotion.
- 1 GB, 600 MB, 500 MB, 300 MB of Internet (35 - 55 euros)

Who are you kidding? to yourself? or to others?

Most Services are Developed and Rolled Out initially within North America (specifically the United States)., where it isn't unusual for Telecoms Companies to have Monopolies over various Counties / States... quite often to the severe detriment of their Customer Base.

On top of this unlike Europe., quite a fair amount of the NA Population is actually in very Low Density Areas, where it's simply not cost effective to lay several hundred miles of Fibre Optic JUST to support a small community.

While it might be 2020., the Avg. Internet Connection in North America is STILL 3-10Mb over DSL (Copper Phone Lines)... and in-fact it isn't uncommon for these to also be Bandwidth Limited or Throttled Heavily during "Peak" Hours.

Why do you think so many people got to angry at Bethesda when they launched Fallout 76 and people had pre-loaded in preparation only for another 52GB patch to hit them on release...

Of course that game is so bad that, once they did get to play they were even more angry; but the point is you can't simply take what's "Normal" for your region and simply expect everyone else to have the same available to them.

I mean for example I have Virgin Media M500 Internet., it's 500Mb Down / 36Mb Up that's on DOCSIS 3.0 Fibre Optic; so it's fairly good, and for that I'm paying like £56/Month which again is a decent price for that type of connection; but here's the thing... Virgin are the ONLY ISP in the UK that actually offer anything above 130Mb without having to be on a Business Connection (which typically start at £200 / Mo) and the Regions they provide Fibre Optic too (which again you NEED for said Connection) AND they actually enable the 500Mb Option for; well it's quite limited across the UK. 

Most areas even Virgin Fibre only provides up to their M200 Connection (which is 230Mb Down / 15-20Mb Up package dependant) 

And here's the thing when we're talking about Cloud Gaming., the Connection Bandwidth (outside of Usage Bandwidth) isn't really a big issue.

6Mb is good enough for 1080p60., 15-20Mb is good enough for 2160p60... instead what matter is the latency. 

Fibre Optic Connections are awesome... because well Latency is always going to be relatively low to a local severs (8-40ms) but someone on an xDSL Connection (over the phone line) and expect that to be more like 20-80ms.

That makes a HUGE difference in terms of Input Latency and thus the Playability of said Games... but then actual Bandwidth (and the ability to maintain a Low Jitter) also can affect when it switched between Low/Mid/High Bandwidth Signals and thus the Output Image.

It is normal that when "users" have no idea of economics and computing, they say what they said.

Welcome to the Internet.

Still I'd say you're answering your own point with said post. 

It is normal for those who have responded to this post in 2018-2019 to not reply to this post again. 

If something merits a response, it gets it. 

When you have no idea what "CLOUD" is like and how it can grow, you only think of the "local machine". Poor minds can only think that.

Then the visionaries hold the reins, while others watch.

The value of Cloud Computing wasn't in question., rather the value of Game Streaming.

GeForce Now is barely used... and that was BEFORE Developers started wanting a cut of NVIDIA's Subscription to have their games supported by it., but NVIDIA will keep it alive out of their own pocket regardless of who does and doesn't use it, because for them it's a marketing tool. 

Stadia is going down in flames., so who knows how much longer that will last. Still that does utilise AMD Hardware for Game Streaming.

The same is true with XCloud, again it's an AMD Solution being used by Microsoft for Game Pass. 

Add in PlayStation Now! which until recently was the only way to play Sony Exclusives on your PC...

I mean all of those Services are "Fine" provided you have good internet. 

But then those of us who can afford the internet that makes them an "Acceptable Alternative" to the actual Hardware... well we can ALSO afford the actual Hardware, and frankly that offers a superior experience; not subjectively but objectively it's just BETTER. 

And that's the main issue with Cloud Gaming Options... in order for them to make sense, you NEED good Internet; which isn't cheap., but those who would NEED Cloud Gaming because of their lack of Hardware aren't going to be able to afford to pay for the Internet, Subscription, etc. in order to USE said Services; and again as I noted above that's even assuming you have the option of good enough internet in your area.

You might, I do... but MOST don't. 

It's also not "Visionary"., Cloud / Streaming Gaming has been attempted for the past Decade., as I recall OnLive was the first "Big" Attempt; not the first but the one most will know of existing. Heck Sony have actually been doing it with PlayStation Now! for what... 8-9 years now. Something like that.

When AMD realizes that GFN has a monopoly, it will be too late. (like the coronavirus book)

While the leading companies (Microsoft, Google and others) prosper.

At present AMD Cloud Solutions account for 2 Game Streaming Services and 5 Cloud Computing Services including the "Big Three" (AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure). 

NVIDIA are the ONLY ones who use their own Solution., just as Sony use a Folding Server powered by PS3s. 

In essence AMD is actually the Industry Leader in Cloud Computing Solutions., well outside of IBM... but different markets.

Where NVIDIA are doing well is in Private Computing Solutions... such-as those for the Automotive and Aviation Industries., those are BIG markets at least in terms of Dollar Value; but they're closed and specialised solutions. It's not the same as Cloud Computing, which NVIDIA have been trying to break into but just can't... why do you think they've shifted focus to AI and ML instead?

For my part I say goodbye here.

By the way, I will not read the comments, it is not worth my time.
Good luck AMD listening to these guys ..

That's not really a big loss...

When you initially posted you clearly had little idea about Cloud Computing or Gaming beyond it being a "Hot Button" Topic and you assumed AMD had nothing to compete against NVIDIA with., that NVIDIA was just unopposed.

I stand by my original statement.

It would be a bad idea for AMD to create their own Game Cloud Streaming Service., and I'm glad they didn't. 

That is not and won't be the future for Gaming, thus such an investment would be a colossal waste of money and resources. 

Creating Solutions for OTHER Companies however, I'm fine with... as it's THEIR Money and Resource they're wasting., and with something like Microsoft that's debateable as well given how they're business model works; it's basically an "Added Bonus" to the Game Pass Subscription that most have for other reasons anyway.

It's a smart approach., as people will use it just because its' something they already have access to.

Still you want to see the value and usefulness of Cloud Computing powered Gaming,. which is a very different thing... look at Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. 

It's an excellent usage of the technology., providing what could NEVER have been done without it. 

And remember it's AMD Solutions powering said Cloud Computing.