GeForce NOW Open for All

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
That moonlight service is nothing like GeForce now, it's self hosted for private use.
Yea, it's better. You aren't limited to games available on the Geforce Now service, just the games on your PC which could be World of Warcraft to emulators playing Breath of the Wild.
As for your other points, 360 Hz is esports tier, high end these days for most people can easily be a 1080 level of performance which this cloud service provides and more. Eurogamer tested it out and said this:
Guess what that means? Geforce Now is not equivalent to a high end gaming PC. 1080p is not high end, it's low end. For most people sure because most people haven't made the jump to 1440p let alone 4k, but that makes Geforce Now barely equivalent to a low end PC. Most cell phones today are capable of displaying beyond 1080p, but that isn't the first contradiction against the Geforce Now service. Like how Nvidia recommends an Ethernet connection or 5G Wifi to use Geforce Now, which means you aren't gaming on your cell phone on a bus.

Oh btw, 4K is coming to GeForce Now as well.
Oh good, I'm sure it'll match Stadia's fake 4k as well because like Stadia it isn't fiscully possible to run a service that uses that hardware for cheap. That's why Shadow charges so much for a service that uses a 4 year old GTX 1080.
I'll stick with my original point, this service is a good thing for people who lack the money to buy a new PC. Even if they up the price to $10/mo, that's $120/yr which is far cheaper than a console or PC.
Sure, for the first 4-5 years, until it isn't. Since Geforce Now works with services like Steam then ideally you should still have a gaming PC.
P.S. NVIDIA had over a million people on a waiting list that wanted to get into the service when it was in beta. I suspect this service will be more successful than the ill fated Stadia.
All cloud gaming services are ill fated, or you think Stadia is the first and only cloud gaming service? Wasn't Geforce Now called Grid at some point? Geforce Now is like saying Grid is under new management for like the 3rd time now. Only Nvidia didn't have the stupidity to force users to have an Nvidia GPU, both on PC and mobile devices.
 

Attachments

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
You are not a metric. For all I know you're an Nvidia employee who's paid to spread propaganda on Geforce Now, like Google did with Stadia. Not a joke, there were a number of Stadia employee's who would argue in favor of Stadia, and they'd use their own experience like it matters. I'll wait for Gamers Nexus to do a review, if they'll actually do it. Scoring high in Fortnite and claiming great success doesn't mean anything.

The problem with game streaming is that it can't buffer, and as such you can't alleviate lag spikes that typically doesn't effect services like NetFlix. At some point you'll hit a lag spike and suddenly the game stops for a slip second or longer.

Nvidia must have something better because they claim to have RTX on. So really Shadow should be dead by now, if it isn't already.

Starting to really sound like an Nvidia employee.


Another one of you guys... Ok...

  1. Firstly, cloud gaming will never match a high gaming PC. It just isn't fiscally possible. Wasn't Nvidia promoting 360 hz recently? How does that factor into Geforce Now being a "High End" PC? It doesn't even do 4k, I just found out. A GTX 1060 can do 4k... poorly but it can do it.
  2. Right now the price of GPU's is stupidly high, and Nvidia is mostly responsible for this, though AMD is also guilty for this as well. This is why the Steam Hardware Survey shows the 1060, 1050, and 1050 Ti as the most popular GPU's that people use in 2020. These are 4 year old GPU's, so I think its time that Nvidia drops some prices already.
  3. It won't be $5 for long, as Nvidia points this out on their website. Don't point it out as if that's the actual price for the service.
  4. Geforce Now will have access to your Steam library, but you know what else does, that doesn't cost a monthly fee? Moonlight for one.
Lol nvidia employee.. I wish, maybe I'd get a discount. But I'm an AMD stockholder instead ;p You seem to have a big tinfoil hat on regarding the success of a service that has no impact on you, whether or not it fails or succeeds.

1. Can it do 4k? no not currently, but it can outmatch my ~$2k gaming laptop with a 2070 GTX, 16gb of ram and an i7 in terms of quality / performance. Many games I couldn't max out on my laptop, GFN/Shadow allow me to do that.
Is it perfect? no definitely not, maybe once a week or so I'll have a latent mouse movement or delayed keyboard stroke that lasts for <=1-2 seconds. But that can happen regardless of it being streamed or local
3. Regardless if it goes up in price (I think shadow in it's peak was $24 a month?) ~140-300 a year is far cheaper than a $1-2k gaming system. Lets compare apples to apples here. a good "top of the line NOT 4k" 1080p gaming system that can actually max out all present day games is probably on average 1200? Lets say the price jumps up to $25 a month for GFN ~$300 a year. It would take 4 years of paying for the service to recoup the costs in the gaming system purchase. But by the time those 4 years are up the latest and greatest is out, and presumably the cloud streaming service will most likely upgrade to even newer hardware during that time or about the time a typical gamer would want to upgrade either their CPU or GPU, and so the cycle continues.

Why do you think so many organizations are moving towards cloud computing / server hosting such as AWS? they are much cheaper than maintaining your own systems and the hardware is always the latest and greatest. It's a service that demands high reliability and functionality, while game streaming like GFN is new, I suspect it will become more mainstream, especially with hardware costs.

Will there be times the service is down due to maintenance or other problems? Most likely but most cloud service providers such as AWS pledge damn near 99.9% uptime / reliability, or they will go out of business because it's not worth it.

Sure you're at the whims of your internet connection, but most people who game or play online games have a reasonable/reliable connection now days (within the US). It's been over 15 years since I've had anything below 100MB connection and I've lived in over 8 cities, multiple states and different countries in that time frame.

Would you want to utilize this as your main option for competitions or FPS type gaming? No probably not, at least not today and I suspect not for the next year or two, but I don't think that is who they're targeting anyways.

4. You can't compare those two at all, moonlight requires you to have a gaming system already, at that point might as well cut out the middle man and use steam remote streaming service, which is already free and built into steam itself. Before my system died I used it quite extensively, it works quite well. You can use steams streaming service to stream any game on your PC as it is, why in the world would you use moonlight as a 3rd party app? I used to stream all of my epic games library through steam in home steaming.

Could I go spend $1-2k on a new system that could easy handle all of the games I play? sure. But GFN/Shadow solutions provide me the ability to play whatever I want, at maximum settings, from my subpar laptop with integrated graphics and I currently get to do it at around $12 a month, and for the past year it's worked 99.9% of the time without issue. It just doesn't make sense for me to spend the cash on a physical system.

Sometime in the next 9 months I do want to upgrade to a full 4k system, and that is when I'll ditch the streaming services and buy new hardware.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
but it can outmatch my ~$2k gaming laptop with a 2070 GTX, 16gb of ram and an i7 in terms of quality / performance.
You forget that compression takes a lot of the fidelity away, compare the RAW uncompressed output to a 30Mbit stream (best case scenario) and compare the differences.
You'll have artifacts and blurryness, I can't image what dark themed games would seem like...
I bet I could make my RX580 look the same as or better than (sans RTX) whatever GeforceNow puts out comparing screenshots and short high bitrate videos. Ultra settings mean nothing at all if it gets compressed to look like medium.
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
You forget that compression takes a lot of the fidelity away, compare the RAW uncompressed output to a 30Mbit stream (best case scenario) and compare the differences.
You'll have artifacts and blurryness, I can't image what dark themed games would seem like...
I've played about 25-30 hours of Doom and a few hours of Dark souls III via streaming, I like to think I have pretty decent eye sight and color palette, I've also played both of those on "real hardware" prior to my system dying. I can't tell any discernible difference, but I'll try and remember to check them again this weekend now that you mention it.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
Why do you think so many organizations are moving towards cloud computing / server hosting such as AWS? they are much cheaper than maintaining your own systems and the hardware is always the latest and greatest. It's a service that demands high reliability and functionality, while game streaming like GFN is new, I suspect it will become more mainstream, especially with hardware costs.
Actually I need to correct you on this one point. Companies are going with the cloud services because of the type of expense they are being capex or opex. That matters on the bottom line come tax reporting.

Companies who have all of their infrastructure in the cloud are discovering it is MORE expensive (imagine that) than having their own once their need is large enough.

there is a time in the growth of a company where having a heavy cloud presence makes sense. Eventually when a company gets large enough retratcing from the cloud becomes a major expense they have to invest in. I believe it was Uber who made the news on that not so long ago.

Here is a recent article comparing Uber and Lyft. It's worth a read, though the author leans toward cloud because that's their preference you can read enough to understand.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/opinions/buying-cloud-scale-lessons-lyft-and-uber/
Otherwise I agree much with what you are saying and with licensing costs for games and everything else I think the cloud gaming will be the middle tier going forward.. but that time is at least 5-10 years away and will require a LOT more internet infrastructure supporting a broader swath of the target markets.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
Actually I need to correct you on this one point. Companies are going with the cloud services because of the type of expense they are being capex or opex. That matters on the bottom line come tax reporting.

Companies who have all of their infrastructure in the cloud are discovering it is MORE expensive (imagine that) than having their own once their need is large enough.

there is a time in the growth of a company where having a heavy cloud presence makes sense. Eventually when a company gets large enough retratcing from the cloud becomes a major expense they have to invest in. I believe it was Uber who made the news on that not so long ago.

Here is a recent article comparing Uber and Lyft. It's worth a read, though the author leans toward cloud because that's their preference you can read enough to understand.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/opinions/buying-cloud-scale-lessons-lyft-and-uber/
Otherwise I agree much with what you are saying and with licensing costs for games and everything else I think the cloud gaming will be the middle tier going forward.. but that time is at least 5-10 years away and will require a LOT more internet infrastructure supporting a broader swath of the target markets.
110% accurate...
People will also find out how crappy their ISP is since you can't "buffer" gameplay and you will literally "feel" every single drop in internet connection that is greater than 0.5 sec. You get none of that in netflix, 1sec drop in internet? no problem! its buffered!
On Wifi you will NEED a robust 5GHz router
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
Actually I need to correct you on this one point. Companies are going with the cloud services because of the type of expense they are being capex or opex. That matters on the bottom line come tax reporting.

Companies who have all of their infrastructure in the cloud are discovering it is MORE expensive (imagine that) than having their own once their need is large enough.

there is a time in the growth of a company where having a heavy cloud presence makes sense. Eventually when a company gets large enough retratcing from the cloud becomes a major expense they have to invest in. I believe it was Uber who made the news on that not so long ago.

Here is a recent article comparing Uber and Lyft. It's worth a read, though the author leans toward cloud because that's their preference you can read enough to understand.
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/opinions/buying-cloud-scale-lessons-lyft-and-uber/
Otherwise I agree much with what you are saying and with licensing costs for games and everything else I think the cloud gaming will be the middle tier going forward.. but that time is at least 5-10 years away and will require a LOT more internet infrastructure supporting a broader swath of the target markets.
Good article, interesting to hear that. I'd done research on it long ago, but only with regards to smaller businesses / start ups, so perhaps I was basing it on old data. My organization is moving towards a hybrid approach later this year, we'll see how it goes, in theory the finance department has done their job and deemed it a smart move. However, we're also not thousands of people.
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,130
Good article, interesting to hear that. I'd done research on it long ago, but only with regards to smaller businesses / start ups, so perhaps I was basing it on old data. My organization is moving towards a hybrid approach later this year, we'll see how it goes, in theory the finance department has done their job and deemed it a smart move. However, we're also not thousands of people.
Never count on your finance department to actually know.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
Lol nvidia employee.. I wish, maybe I'd get a discount. But I'm an AMD stockholder instead ;p You seem to have a big tinfoil hat on regarding the success of a service that has no impact on you, whether or not it fails or succeeds.
You say this but then...
1. Can it do 4k? no not currently, but it can outmatch my ~$2k gaming laptop with a 2070 GTX, 16gb of ram and an i7 in terms of quality / performance. Many games I couldn't max out on my laptop, GFN/Shadow allow me to do that.
So you're an AMD stockholder and you own a GTX 2070 laptop and you know 4k Geforce Now's performance, which doesn't exist yet, will outperform your $2k gaming laptop. See the contradictions you just introduced? I count at least four contradictions.
Is it perfect? no definitely not, maybe once a week or so I'll have a latent mouse movement or delayed keyboard stroke that lasts for <=1-2 seconds. But that can happen regardless of it being streamed or local
That's the same shit Stadia promoters were saying. And no, local gaming doesn't have delayed keyboard strokes unless your $2k laptop has serious issues.
3. Regardless if it goes up in price (I think shadow in it's peak was $24 a month?) ~140-300 a year is far cheaper than a $1-2k gaming system. Lets compare apples to apples here. a good "top of the line NOT 4k" 1080p gaming system that can actually max out all present day games is probably on average 1200? Lets say the price jumps up to $25 a month for GFN ~$300 a year. It would take 4 years of paying for the service to recoup the costs in the gaming system purchase. But by the time those 4 years are up the latest and greatest is out, and presumably the cloud streaming service will most likely upgrade to even newer hardware during that time or about the time a typical gamer would want to upgrade either their CPU or GPU, and so the cycle continues.
Nobody buys $2k gaming systems, and if you do then I'm sorry for you. My Vega 56 + Ryzen 2700X system was $800 and it would destroy Geforce Now in everything. I could build a PC with a Ryzen + RX 580 for $500 that would destroy Geforce Now. This is why I think you're a Nvidia employee because you act like $2k PC's are the norm when most people on Steam's Hardware survey are using a GTX 1060 or lower. Expensive PC's with expensive graphic cards are not the norm. Also never run games at Ultra settings because in most games it offers little in image quality but a massive drop in performance.
Why do you think so many organizations are moving towards cloud computing / server hosting such as AWS?
Because it makes them far more money in terms of game sales. Just like Steam, Origin, and etc they'll take a cut of game sales. Ultimate form of DRM with a walled garden so that you can't move to competing services without losing your existing library.
they are much cheaper than maintaining your own systems and the hardware is always the latest and greatest.
No it fucking isn't because it obviously can't do higher frame rates with higher resolutions. Until 4k is released I'm going to assume it's just DLSS 4k because cloud gaming isn't cheap to sustain. I'm calling it right now that Geforce Now's 4k is going to be with DLSS. Same crap as Stadia.
It's a service that demands high reliability and functionality,
Again, no it fucking isn't because no internet connection is reliable.
while game streaming like GFN is new, I suspect it will become more mainstream, especially with hardware costs.
Which is why I can't wait for Intel to be making GPU's because we clearly need more competition in the GPU market. Again, Nvidia's Geforce Now is fixing a problem that Nvidia caused with higher priced GPU's. Which is why Steam hardly shows any RTX cards. Even the GTX 1660's are hardly there.

I've played about 25-30 hours of Doom and a few hours of Dark souls III via streaming, I like to think I have pretty decent eye sight and color palette, I've also played both of those on "real hardware" prior to my system dying. I can't tell any discernible difference, but I'll try and remember to check them again this weekend now that you mention it.
Take snapshots of the game running on Gefroce Now so we can compare. Game action will create less detail than standing still in the game. Don't know if you can run benchmarks on Geforce Now?
 
Last edited:

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
You say this but then...

So you're an AMD stockholder and you own a GTX 2070 laptop and you know 4k Geforce Now's performance, which doesn't exist yet, will outperform your $2k gaming laptop. See the contradictions you just introduced? I count at least four contradictions.

That's the same shit Stadia promoters were saying. And no, local gaming doesn't have delayed keyboard strokes unless your $2k laptop has serious issues.

Nobody buys $2k gaming systems, and if you do then I'm sorry for you. My Vega 56 + Ryzen 2700X system was $800 and it would destroy Geforce Now in everything. I could build a PC with a Ryzen + RX 580 for $500 that would destroy Geforce Now. This is why I think you're a Nvidia employee because you act like $2k PC's are the norm when most people on Steam's Hardware survey are using a GTX 1060 or lower. Expensive PC's with expensive graphic cards are not the norm. Also never run games at Ultra settings because in most games it offers little in image quality but a massive drop in performance.

Because it makes them far more money in terms of game sales. Just like Steam, Origin, and etc they'll take a cut of game sales. Ultimate form of DRM with a walled garden so that you can't move to competing services without losing your existing library.

No it fucking isn't because it obviously can't do higher frame rates with higher resolutions. Until 4k is released I'm going to assume it's just DLSS 4k because cloud gaming isn't cheap to sustain. I'm calling it right now that Geforce Now's 4k is going to be with DLSS. Same crap as Stadia.

Again, no it fucking isn't because no internet connection is reliable.

Which is why I can't wait for Intel to be making GPU's because we clearly need more competition in the GPU market. Again, Nvidia's Geforce Now is fixing a problem that Nvidia caused with higher priced GPU's. Which is why Steam hardly shows any RTX cards. Even the GTX 1660's are hardly there.


Take snapshots of the game running on Gefroce Now so we can compare. Game action will create less detail than standing still in the game. Don't know if you can run benchmarks on Geforce Now?
You say this but then...

So you're an AMD stockholder and you own a GTX 2070 laptop and you know 4k Geforce Now's performance, which doesn't exist yet, will outperform your $2k gaming laptop. See the contradictions you just introduced? I count at least four contradictions.
Sigh.. considering AMD didn't have gaming systems 3 years ago when I bought my system.. yep surprise surprise it's an nvidia GPU. but yes, a 1080 gtx desktop will easily out perform a 2070 mobile gpu inside of a laptop.
Nobody buys $2k gaming systems, and if you do then I'm sorry for you. My Vega 56 + Ryzen 2700X system was $800 and it would destroy Geforce Now in everything. I could build a PC with a Ryzen + RX 580 for $500 that would destroy Geforce Now. This is why I think you're a Nvidia employee because you act like $2k PC's are the norm when most people on Steam's Hardware survey are using a GTX 1060 or lower. Expensive PC's with expensive graphic cards are not the norm. Also never run games at Ultra settings because in most games it offers little in image quality but a massive drop in performance.
Perhaps that is the case.. 3 years ago I wasn't in a position to do desktop gaming due to travel and work, out of touch on desktop prices now days.

You keep touting it's garbage because it doesn't do 4k, but the cheapest actual 4k gaming GPU is like a 2080 Ti is it not? Sure, my 2070m could do 4k... on like lowest settings at best. Your 2700x w/ vega56 sure cant on decent settings.

You must never operate any games in ultra, there are some vast differences on ultra in some games.. all games? no, but I'd say a lot there is very noticeable difference.
That's the same shit Stadia promoters were saying. And no, local gaming doesn't have delayed keyboard strokes unless your $2k laptop has serious issues.
Local gaming absolutely does have delays when you're in intense fights and graphical settings, it's called low framerate. Unless you're running on lowest settings or have a 2080 Ti, I suspect people try to run a game at the highest settings they are capable of; when a system encounters too much, it boggs down for 1-2 secs and catches up. That may happen 1-2 times a week for me while using GFN/Shadow (TBH, I rarely use GFN now in the past 30-60 days, just shadow... GFN didn't have the game on it I wanted and have been in the mood for the past couple months)
No it fucking isn't because it obviously can't do higher frame rates with higher resolutions. Until 4k is released I'm going to assume it's just DLSS 4k because cloud gaming isn't cheap to sustain. I'm calling it right now that Geforce Now's 4k is going to be with DLSS. Same crap as Stadia.

Again, no it fucking isn't because no internet connection is reliable.
I am running all of my games at 1080p over 60 FPS. Obviously it's not doing 4k now.. but neither is your $800 2700x system.

I feel sad for wherever you live, is it really that unstable/unreliable for you? I even have spectrum and in the past 3 years I've never dipped below 100mb connection speed and haven't had longer than a 1-2 hr outage...and that was due to a car knocking out a pole in the neighbor hood. My whole neighborhood was built between 1983-1988, so it's not like I'm operating on top of the line infrastructure either.

Which is why I can't wait for Intel to be making GPU's because we clearly need more competition in the GPU market. Again, Nvidia's Geforce Now is fixing a problem that Nvidia caused with higher priced GPU's. Which is why Steam hardly shows any RTX cards. Even the GTX 1660's are hardly there.


Take snapshots of the game running on Gefroce Now so we can compare. Game action will create less detail than standing still in the game. Don't know if you can run benchmarks on Geforce Now?
I am cautiously optimistic on seeing intels discreet gpu performance, more competition is good. I absolutely can't wait to see big navi later this year.

I'll try and grab some shots tonight, unsure of benchmarks, haven't looked for it, I'll check.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
Just tried out GeforceNow on ARK (don't judge lol). Free version.
You get a Tesla P40. (sectioned off I suppose)
4 cores 8 thread Xeon E5 v4 (forget the model) at like 2.6 Ghz.
Space enough for the game... so like 150GB for ARK with mods lol.

Now for the gameplay setup:
Haswell 4720qm i7 laptop 16GB RAM GTX 980m
5GHz netgear @433Mbps
Cable internet 200d 20u, pinging Google DNS = ~30ms
Task manager shows consistent 25Mbps network usage.

Image quality:
I put all settings on epic and maxed the sliders.
Terrible banding visible, especially on clouds and sky.
Panning smoothly is almost impossible.
Visible tearing (not sure why since fps is lower than 60)
While panning, the compression artifacts/banding are even more pronounced.
Occasional drops or stutters every 10 secs.
Overall image quality looks like epic settings running at a non-native res (like 1600x900 or 720p)
Noticeable input lag, (cable ISP) casual gamer probably won't notice.
Also Textures were low res for some reason (limited VRAM even though P40 has like 24GB DDR5?)

Playing natively on this laptop overall looks much better and actually runs smoother too (even though I have to tone down some sliders and put shadows on high or medium).
Also zero banding when playing native on laptop.

However,this does mean that an ultrabook with an Intel IGP can "play" ARK which is a relatively heavy and unoptimized game very respectably.
However this laptop from 2014 plays ARK better than GeforceNow currently does. that's a 6 year old laptop.
So, Game streaming has caught up to 2013-2014 performance, and looks worse than a GTX980m. so that's what, about a GTX1650?

And before you guys point out I'm on Wifi, isn't that the target market exactly?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
Here you can see the banding I'm talking about and remember, that when I look at one spot for more than 1sec some of the banding goes away, so you don't get to see the full bad banding in these PNG screenshots:
1.png

2.png
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
Here you can see the banding I'm talking about and remember, that when I look at one spot for more than 1sec some of the banding goes away, so you don't get to see the full bad banding in these PNG screenshots:
I see some banding in the nighttime sky you posted, but I think that is a lighting "Feature" of ARK, however I haven't played it in a long while on local hardware so I can't say for sure.

Loaded up GFN and Shadow at the same time.. just for those curious, was averaging around 45Mbps with both clients up.


This first one below is from my laptop few months back, probably not running quite as good of settings as GFN is.

1581126584020.png





These below are from my surface pro 6 streaming.
1581126147260.png

1581126202798.png

1581126222846.png



these below is Archeage, running on Shadow while also running GFN
1581126294714.png

1581126405442.png
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
You keep touting it's garbage because it doesn't do 4k,
No, it's garbage because it has latency that will never ever go away and you keep comparing it to a $2k PC. Anything above 100ms input latency is uncomfortable to play, and I doubt Nvidia achieved bellow 100ms input latency.
but the cheapest actual 4k gaming GPU is like a 2080 Ti is it not?
Depends on the game and the settings but last I checked the 2080 Ti can't do 60fps in Borderlands 3 with 4k max settings. Obviously you lower settings for 4k or 1440p. I personally believe that AA at 4k is a waste of GPU resources. The perpose of AA was to remove jaggies caused by lower resolutions like 640X480 or 800X600, but at 4k you shouldn't see much of any jaggies, especially if you're using a smaller monitor at 4k.
Sure, my 2070m could do 4k... on like lowest settings at best. Your 2700x w/ vega56 sure cant on decent settings.
I'm more of a 1440p guy at higher frame rates, to reduce input lag. You can do 1440p in most games on a GTX 1060 or even 970. You won't be getting 120fps but that's still better than Geforce Now.
You must never operate any games in ultra, there are some vast differences on ultra in some games.. all games? no, but I'd say a lot there is very noticeable difference.
Depends on the game because some games it makes no different in performance. Besides what do you care about Ultra settings when Geforce Now is compressing the image?
Local gaming absolutely does have delays when you're in intense fights and graphical settings, it's called low framerate. Unless you're running on lowest settings or have a 2080 Ti, I suspect people try to run a game at the highest settings they are capable of; when a system encounters too much, it boggs down for 1-2 secs and catches up. That may happen 1-2 times a week for me while using GFN/Shadow (TBH, I rarely use GFN now in the past 30-60 days, just shadow... GFN didn't have the game on it I wanted and have been in the mood for the past couple months)
Making a lot of assumptions there. If the game does lag then a local user has the option. Cloud gaming can't increase the speed of light, or the speed of electricity.
I am running all of my games at 1080p over 60 FPS. Obviously it's not doing 4k now.. but neither is your $800 2700x system.
Its doing 1440p at somewhat around 120fps, depending on the game.
I feel sad for wherever you live, is it really that unstable/unreliable for you? I even have spectrum and in the past 3 years I've never dipped below 100mb connection speed and haven't had longer than a 1-2 hr outage...and that was due to a car knocking out a pole in the neighbor hood. My whole neighborhood was built between 1983-1988, so it's not like I'm operating on top of the line infrastructure either.
I'm using optimum and my speed is pretty good, but why would I use cloud gaming at home? I would think the appeal is using it on a phone while on the go? That's when internet sucks so much even YouTube videos aren't reliable. I also rarely want to pull out my phone to play games because touchscreens are bullshit. Seriously, I want my slide out qwerty phones back again.
dukenukemx.smart.jpg
I am cautiously optimistic on seeing intels discreet gpu performance, more competition is good. I absolutely can't wait to see big navi later this year.
Yea, I can't wait for a GPU that most people and myself can't afford. We all know Intels first GPU's are going to suck, but if they can reach RX 5700 levels of performance with Ray-Tracing for less than $300 then I'd say we have a winner.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
Here you can see the banding I'm talking about and remember, that when I look at one spot for more than 1sec some of the banding goes away, so you don't get to see the full bad banding in these PNG screenshots:
View attachment 221788
View attachment 221789
I don't have a copy of ARK on me. WoW this game is made in 2015 and on Steam they want $50. Anyone can take screenshots of the game at 1080p max settings running local? Wanna try to get a side by side comparison if possible.
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
No, it's garbage because it has latency that will never ever go away and you keep comparing it to a $2k PC. Anything above 100ms input latency is uncomfortable to play, and I doubt Nvidia achieved bellow 100ms input latency.

Depends on the game and the settings but last I checked the 2080 Ti can't do 60fps in Borderlands 3 with 4k max settings. Obviously you lower settings for 4k or 1440p. I personally believe that AA at 4k is a waste of GPU resources. The perpose of AA was to remove jaggies caused by lower resolutions like 640X480 or 800X600, but at 4k you shouldn't see much of any jaggies, especially if you're using a smaller monitor at 4k.

I'm more of a 1440p guy at higher frame rates, to reduce input lag. You can do 1440p in most games on a GTX 1060 or even 970. You won't be getting 120fps but that's still better than Geforce Now.


Making a lot of assumptions there. If the game does lag then a local user has the option. Cloud gaming can't increase the speed of light, or the speed of electricity.


Yea, I can't wait for a GPU that most people and myself can't afford. We all know Intels first GPU's are going to suck, but if they can reach RX 5700 levels of performance with Ray-Tracing for less than $300 then I'd say we have a winner.
Comparing it to a $2k laptop from 3 years ago, guess I should clarify, 2k PC would probably give me a 2080 ti and with a sweet CPU now days.

However, while my data points are only from one person... I've come in first place on multiple games of fortnite, which absolutely requires low input latency. I've also won on mordhau... also needs very low latency.

Glad to hear 1440p is very achievable, that seems like the sweet spot, that might be what I have to strive for.


With cloud streaming I've been capable of being #1 in FPS games.. a useful member on MMO type games where I'm required to provide critical healing, all of which require low latency.

I admit, I'm probably not the typical case. Don't get me wrong, if I had the free time to escape to my office, I'd buy a 1440p capable system today, however due to kids and the need to get more close proximity time with the wife, I game on the couch from a surface pro. I used to use my gaming laptop.. however it can no longer go more than like 30-45 mins before blue screening / over heating... even at max fans. So, now that GFN / shadow are an option.. 99% of the time I can't tell the difference between my physical system and cloud streaming, and I can actually run the games at higher levels. Obviously there is probably some video compression.. but I can run it at higher settings compared to the 2070m.

Don't get me wrong, if I played more then a few hours half paying attention a night, I probably wouldn't recommend this as the ultimate solution. But, for the casual gamer at 1080p playing with good internet.. this makes a lot of sense.


Re your other post.. I'll see if I can get ark running on my laptop long enough to take a screenshot, then compare to GFN.
 
Last edited:

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
I don't have a copy of ARK on me. WoW this game is made in 2015 and on Steam they want $50. Anyone can take screenshots of the game at 1080p max settings running local? Wanna try to get a side by side comparison if possible.
**Apologies I kept typing 2070.. my laptop has a 1070.

2017 MSI GT72VR Dominator Pro-448 17.3" 120Hz 5ms Display Powerful Gaming Laptop Core i7-7700HQ GTX 1070 w/ 1TB samsung m.2 SSD

first 4 photos are from laptop running the game. Looks like I was averaging 25-30fps (definitely can't run at epic settings full time)

1581132483637.png

1581132521214.png


1581132557929.png

1581135554597.png







Below is GFN from surface pro 6 (black bars because my native resolution is higher than 1080p) (this looks like it was averaging about the same ~25fps.. seems I spawned in a very full location.

1581132618341.png

1581132632616.png

1581132651672.png

1581132677635.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,585
So I downloaded GFN and gave it a shot, I was getting 23ms ping to a west coast server. I tried Apex Legends and could see some compression artifacts but they weren't too bad. However, the added latency made it difficult to be competitive so this service is definitely not for competitive players (which I doubt it's marketed towards anyway). However, I did record a 9 min video of Bioshock Infinite which worked remarkably well and this is where the service will do well, SP games, MMO and other slow paced titles. I'll put up the video of the gameplay once it's done encoding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
I don't have a copy of ARK on me. WoW this game is made in 2015 and on Steam they want $50. Anyone can take screenshots of the game at 1080p max settings running local? Wanna try to get a side by side comparison if possible.
I can do some tomorrow afternoon.

All I know is that there is absolutely no banding in the sky at all when I play local.
To me it's no comparison, but then, I don't have fiber internet...
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
So I downloaded GFN and gave it a shot, I was getting 23ms ping to a west coast server. I tried Apex Legends and could see some compression artifacts but they weren't too bad. However, the added latency made it difficult to be competitive so this service is definitely not for competitive players (which I doubt it's marketed towards anyway). However, I did record a 9 min video of Bioshock Infinite which worked remarkably well and this is where the service will do well, SP games, MMO and other slow paced titles. I'll put up the video of the gameplay once it's done encoding.
I'll admit, my competitive wins were probably a yearish ago when it was new, probably with limited use during beta, but yeah it excels on SP and MMO types for sure.
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
I can do some tomorrow afternoon.

All I know is that there is absolutely no banding in the sky at all when I play local.
To me it's no comparison, but then, I don't have fiber internet...
perhaps it's been so long since I've been able to enjoy a locally played game I have a hard time remembering / distinguishing a 10-15% drop in quality due to compression (made up percentage). Granted I do have great internet it seems. I look forward to more comparison shots to compare.

Could be the xx% drop in quality due to compression is covered up by the xx% increase in quality due to better hardware than my current system as well.
 

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
Comparing it to a $2k laptop from 3 years ago, guess I should clarify, 2k PC would probably give me a 2080 ti and with a sweet CPU now days.
This matters why? Most people don't spend that much on a PC, and you don't need anything better than a GTX 1060 to get 1080p performance.
However, while my data points are only from one person... I've come in first place on multiple games of fortnite, which absolutely requires low input latency. I've also won on mordhau... also needs very low latency.
Pics or didn't happen.
With cloud streaming I've been capable of being #1 in FPS games.. a useful member on MMO type games where I'm required to provide critical healing, all of which require low latency.
You sure you don't work for Nvidia? You sound like their PR department.
I admit, I'm probably not the typical case.
None of us are the typical case, honestly. Steam shows that the average person rocks a GTX 1060 or less with a quad core CPU or less. Most of us here run PC's faster than that. The reality is most people won't touch cloud gaming unless there's a really good deal or a huge convenience. Not having to buy a PC or console is a huge convience, but when someone starts up a game and runs into performance issues then they'll look elsewhere. As good as Geforce Now is I doubt they have input latency less than 100ms, which is a turn off for most people. Especially because the average Joe Six Pack is mostly using 802.11n WiFi that is supplied from the ISP. Which means they'll experience worse input lag than most of us will. While Gamers Nexus or Digital Foundry might achieve 120ms on average in games, then add another 50ms for crappy slow home wifi.
Don't get me wrong, if I had the free time to escape to my office, I'd buy a 1440p capable system today,
How many hours a day do you game on Geforce Now again? Do you not have access to Amazon or NewEgg?
however due to kids and the need to get more close proximity time with the wife, I game on the couch from a surface pro.
Sounds like an awfully specific place.
I used to use my gaming laptop.. however it can no longer go more than like 30-45 mins before blue screening / over heating... even at max fans. So, now that GFN / shadow are an option.. 99% of the time I can't tell the difference between my physical system and cloud streaming, and I can actually run the games at higher levels. Obviously there is probably some video compression.. but I can run it at higher settings compared to the 2070m.
You sure you aren't a door to door sales man who sells vacuum cleaners that comes with a free month of Geforce Now? I'd also point you to how I was able to get my Vega 56 down to 63C core with 15 mins of FurMark using the reference cooler with details on how I achieved this here. Just look at my sexy lap job. This is also the same technique I used to reduce the temperature of my laptops, because apparently I have like 15 laptops. 17 laptops if I count the two Toshiba laptops my cousin gave me because they got hot and slow, but I plan to give those to a friend of mine for free. I got the temperature down to 61C under load. But you probably don't have enough time to do all that with gaming on the cloud on the couch and all.

Remember this is the PCMasterRace where our frame rates stay high and our temps low. If I just simply played games off Steam and Origin then how different am I to a console peasant? No.. I play games with mods. I play console games on PC through emulators. I play console games on PC through an emulator that has mods installed. I play old games like Doom but with the Brutal Doom mod. I can play dead games on a private server like City of Heroes. Cloud gaming is just an inferior console system with input lag. Which somehow seems even more inferior to consoles, which I didn't think that was possible. Why would anyone of us think about cloud gaming as an alternative?


Re your other post.. I'll see if I can get ark running on my laptop long enough to take a screenshot, then compare to GFN.
I'd honestly like to see your laptops temp as well. That sounds crazy.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,585
Remember this is the PCMasterRace where our frame rates stay high and our temps low. If I just simply played games off Steam and Origin then how different am I to a console peasant? No.. I play games with mods. I play console games on PC through emulators. I play console games on PC through an emulator that has mods installed. I play old games like Doom but with the Brutal Doom mod. I can play dead games on a private server like City of Heroes. Cloud gaming is just an inferior console system with input lag. Which somehow seems even more inferior to consoles, which I didn't think that was possible. Why would anyone of us think about cloud gaming as an alternative?
You've been told ad nauseam that it's an alternative for people who couldn't otherwise afford a gaming PC (or travel to places where one isn't available) and instead of addressing that, you go off on a tangent talking about PCMR and mods and accusing other people of being nvidia employees. Like seriously, wtf dude, get a grip and quit with the trolling. NVIDIA isn't in the business of destroying their most lucrative income (consumer GPUs), they're offering a game streaming service to those who want to play PC games on crappy android phones, tablets and laptops. Why does that get you so worked up? I don't know where you live, but here in California you can get fast internet in just about any city and when you're not at home, there are plenty of fast wireless options. This service isn't a trojan horse to replace PCs or even consoles, it's a third tier alternative and more choices is a good thing, not bad.

You should take a break and let the people who are interested in discussing the service have a say instead of trying to shoot them down constantly. Go outside, have a smoke and take a huge breather.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
This matters why? Most people don't spend that much on a PC, and you don't need anything better than a GTX 1060 to get 1080p performance.

Pics or didn't happen.

You sure you don't work for Nvidia? You sound like their PR department.

None of us are the typical case, honestly. Steam shows that the average person rocks a GTX 1060 or less with a quad core CPU or less. Most of us here run PC's faster than that. The reality is most people won't touch cloud gaming unless there's a really good deal or a huge convenience. Not having to buy a PC or console is a huge convience, but when someone starts up a game and runs into performance issues then they'll look elsewhere. As good as Geforce Now is I doubt they have input latency less than 100ms, which is a turn off for most people. Especially because the average Joe Six Pack is mostly using 802.11n WiFi that is supplied from the ISP. Which means they'll experience worse input lag than most of us will. While Gamers Nexus or Digital Foundry might achieve 120ms on average in games, then add another 50ms for crappy slow home wifi.

How many hours a day do you game on Geforce Now again? Do you not have access to Amazon or NewEgg?
Bruh, that was like 9 months ago during my peak gaming time! I may have a screenshot somewhere, I'm too lazy to look and can't prove it was on GFN ;p
I average 3ish hours a night of gaming via lovely couch (not my choice.. but I care about my relationship more than my gametime). Of course I have access to amazon and newegg, but why would I buy another laptop.. muchless a desktop when all I'm going to do is stream is to my surface pro from the couch.

Absolutely I could buy another laptop... but I've burnt through 3 gaming laptops over the course of 7 years, they have horrible heat dissipation and their longevity is 1-3 years with sustained gaming. For real, look it up, nvidia GPUs blow for long term gaming in a laptop. I've literally had to bake 2 different laptop GPUs (880, 980) in the oven in order to reflow the solder to make them functional. I'll never buy another gaming laptop again, especially NVIDIA based, unless I see a long term review proving it lasts more then 3 years. Conveniently laptop warranties last about 2 years on average.

I religiously reapply thermal paste every 90 days to assist, but mobile (laptop) NVIDIA GPUs suck balls. I hope to hear AMD or in the future intels are better and last more than 2 years, because I've yet to see a NVIDIA one do it. I've had an 880gtx, 980gtx and now an 1070gtx (barely hanging on) die.
Sounds like an awfully specific place.

You sure you aren't a door to door sales man who sells vacuum cleaners that comes with a free month of Geforce Now? I'd also point you to how I was able to get my Vega 56 down to 63C core with 15 mins of FurMark using the reference cooler with details on how I achieved this here. Just look at my sexy lap job. This is also the same technique I used to reduce the temperature of my laptops, because apparently I have like 15 laptops. 17 laptops if I count the two Toshiba laptops my cousin gave me because they got hot and slow, but I plan to give those to a friend of mine for free. I got the temperature down to 61C under load. But you probably don't have enough time to do all that with gaming on the cloud on the couch and all.

Remember this is the PCMasterRace where our frame rates stay high and our temps low. If I just simply played games off Steam and Origin then how different am I to a console peasant? No.. I play games with mods. I play console games on PC through emulators. I play console games on PC through an emulator that has mods installed. I play old games like Doom but with the Brutal Doom mod. I can play dead games on a private server like City of Heroes. Cloud gaming is just an inferior console system with input lag. Which somehow seems even more inferior to consoles, which I didn't think that was possible. Why would anyone of us think about cloud gaming as an alternative?


I'd honestly like to see your laptops temp as well. That sounds crazy.
Well, of course it's a specific place, that's what I do multiple times a week. Kids go to bed at 7-730... wife and I get freetime from then until 10-1030. I'd love to escape to the office to gametime alone, but me playing half attentive on the couch lets us communicate an spend time together...and keeps her happy!

I wish I worked for nvidia.. I suspect I'd get a sweet discount and have a 2080 ti or some such!.. or nvidia stock. either way would work.

Seems to me you've never had the pleasure of dealing with the heat of a higher performance GPU in a laptop while running a game under max settings.. NVIDIA sucks at it and are horribly hot. Average 80C.

//edit. I have spent a decent chunk of change on higher performance ubiquiti network products, gateway/router, switches and access points, perhaps that also assists in my lower latency in combination with my functional internet.
 
Last edited:

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
Are you brain damaged? Seriously. You've been told ad nauseam that it's an alternative for people who couldn't otherwise afford a gaming PC (or travel to places where one isn't available) and instead of addressing that, you go off on a tangent talking about PCMR and mods.
I've already addressed those issues.
A. We don't know the final cost of Geforce Now, cause it certainly isn't $5 per month.
B. Here's a $630 pre-built gaming PC that'll do a better job.
C. If you're traveling then this certainly won't work as well as advertised. Remember latency is all about distance from server.
D. Get a Switch if you plan to travel. I did and modded the sucker and put Brutal Doom on it, among other things like emulators. Cell phone internet is not that good, and defintely drops when you're in a moving vehicle.
Like seriously, wtf dude, get a grip. NVIDIA isn't in the business of destroying their most lucrative income (consumer GPUs), they're offering a game streaming service to those who want to play PC games on crappy android phones, tablets and laptops.
Nvidia's most lucrative income is from servers... like Geforce Now. Most of those servers aren't obviously used for gaming, but I'm sure Nvidia would like to be the #1 choice for cloud gaming hardware if they could.
Why does that get you so worked up? I don't know where you live, but here in California you can get fast internet in just about any city and when you're not at home, there are plenty of fast wireless options.
Because I have a network degree and I know you can't beat the speed of light. That's it, don't pass Go, don't get $200, don't game without latency. It is the main reason why cloud gaming is always going to fail, because we seem to ignore the most fundamental principal of physics. It's the reason why Stadia failed, among many other things. It's the reason why Grid and now renamed Geforce Now has and will fail. And yes I know most of the latency is caused by hops, but those aren't unavoidable. It's literally the most retarded thing ever. WTF even?

You can't get a faster internet because ultimately the speed of light is the issue, not bandwidth. A lack of bandwidth can cause more latency but I'm ignoring that issue and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt that their internet is fast as hell. You want to fix this issue then you need to move the server closer to you, or you move closer to the server. As it is most games have anywhere from 60ms to 80ms of latency without cloud gaming. The higher the frame rate the lower the latency. I assume we all know this right? So it's easy to see that cloud gaming must have over 100ms of input lag, unless you play a game like Thumper which can run on a potato of a computer.

The fact that Nvidia has stipulations like a wait time and a limited time to stay logged is just icing on the shit cake. Because financially these services can't maintain a profit without limiting how much hardware is used. That's why Stadia was up-scaling to 4k, like I predicted, and why Nvidia will probably use DLSS for 4k as well. They are using server grade hardware like Xeons running @ 2.7Ghz, with a Tesla P40 or something like that. That is vastly more expensive hardware than something like a 9900K with a RTX 2080 Ti, and inferior for gaming. You really think they'll let you or "casual" gamers use this service for as long as they want for $5?


This service isn't a trojan horse to replace PCs or even consoles, it's a third tier alternative and more choices is a good thing, not bad.
It works like video streaming services where in this case more choice is bad. You want to watch the Mandalorian then you need a Disney+ subscription. Want to watch Star Trek Picard, then you need CBS All access. The Witcher is on Netflix, and the Grand Tour is on Amazon Prime. Neither Stadia or Geforce Now has exclusives... yet, but PS Now certainly does. We're just opening up Pandora's Box if we allow these services to florish, besides that it has the potential to destroy console and PC gaming. It won't happen but throw in some timed exclusives and raise the price of gaming hardware and it might.
 

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
I've already addressed those issues.
A. We don't know the final cost of Geforce Now, cause it certainly isn't $5 per month.
B. Here's a $630 pre-built gaming PC that'll do a better job.
C. If you're traveling then this certainly won't work as well as advertised. Remember latency is all about distance from server.
D. Get a Switch if you plan to travel. I did and modded the sucker and put Brutal Doom on it, among other things like emulators. Cell phone internet is not that good, and defintely drops when you're in a moving vehicle.



Because I have a network degree and I know you can't beat the speed of light. That's it, don't pass Go, don't get $200, don't game without latency. It is the main reason why cloud gaming is always going to fail, because we seem to ignore the most fundamental principal of physics. It's the reason why Stadia failed, among many other things. It's the reason why Grid and now renamed Geforce Now has and will fail. And yes I know most of the latency is caused by hops, but those aren't unavoidable. It's literally the most retarded thing ever. WTF even?

You can't get a faster internet because ultimately the speed of light is the issue, not bandwidth. A lack of bandwidth can cause more latency but I'm ignoring that issue and giving everyone the benefit of the doubt that their internet is fast as hell. You want to fix this issue then you need to move the server closer to you, or you move closer to the server. As it is most games have anywhere from 60ms to 80ms of latency without cloud gaming. The higher the frame rate the lower the latency. I assume we all know this right? So it's easy to see that cloud gaming must have over 100ms of input lag, unless you play a game like Thumper which can run on a potato of a computer.

The fact that Nvidia has stipulations like a wait time and a limited time to stay logged is just icing on the shit cake. Because financially these services can't maintain a profit without limiting how much hardware is used. That's why Stadia was up-scaling to 4k, like I predicted, and why Nvidia will probably use DLSS for 4k as well. They are using server grade hardware like Xeons running @ 2.7Ghz, with a Tesla P40 or something like that. That is vastly more expensive hardware than something like a 9900K with a RTX 2080 Ti, and inferior for gaming. You really think they'll let you or "casual" gamers use this service for as long as they want for $5?




It works like video streaming services where in this case more choice is bad. You want to watch the Mandalorian then you need a Disney+ subscription. Want to watch Star Trek Picard, then you need CBS All access. The Witcher is on Netflix, and the Grand Tour is on Amazon Prime. Neither Stadia or Geforce Now has exclusives... yet, but PS Now certainly does. We're just opening up Pandora's Box if we allow these services to florish, besides that it has the potential to destroy console and PC gaming. It won't happen but throw in some timed exclusives and raise the price of gaming hardware and it might.
1. Will it cost $5 long term? probably not. but you're speculating, and as it stands it is either free for 1 hour sessions for $5 for unlimited, until it is stated otherwise and an annoucment has been made, guess what.. it's $5.
2. Speculation yet again, you havent utilized that system and you seem to have never utilized GFN
3. You realize GFN has multiple servers in multiple locations? It worked quite well in some hotels I've stayed at.
4. A switch...nevermind

Nvidia's most lucrative income is from servers... like Geforce Now. Most of those servers aren't obviously used for gaming, but I'm sure Nvidia would like to be the #1 choice for cloud gaming hardware if they could.
Because I have a network degree and I know you can't beat the speed of light. That's it, don't pass Go, don't get $200, don't game without latency.
As it is most games have anywhere from 60ms to 80ms of latency without cloud gaming. The higher the frame rate the lower the latency. I assume we all know this right? So it's easy to see that cloud gaming must have over 100ms of input lag,
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-does-nvidia-make-money-2019-09-10Well, look at that, who would have thought, not a bit of revenue was made from server services such as GFN.

Network degree...speed of light. k. I have 12-18ms latency to the GFN server, and in game have a latency anywhere from 10-40 depending on the game. So I average anywhere between 22-58. Ideal latency in online FPS type games is 50ms or less.. so 22-58 is in the pretty ideal range for FPS. (I suspect I have a GFN server in very close proximity), but honestly 90ms or less is pretty decent.

lot of speculation from someone that seems to never have utilize the service. Let's just be a typical [H] human being here, spend 5 minutes and go look at the googles or reddit, don't take my word for it, there are hundreds/ thousands of reviews out already. Some are meh, others are competing and winning in competitive FPS games.

Not everyone will have that perfect experience of course, but many will.. or no one would be willing to pay for it, and it would obviously go out of business right... I'm pretty sure that's how business works, bad product, no money, no business.

I'd like to think NVIDIA is a pretty competent and has smart people in their ranks, or they wouldn't be in business. Of course not everyone is going to have the same experience because.. guess what not everyone has the same ISP or good networking equipment in their house, a lot of people use the garbage router/modem combo from their ISP, I suspect they may suffer under streaming conditions. I'm sure you know all this with your networking degree though.

It works like video streaming services where in this case more choice is bad. You want to watch the Mandalorian then you need a Disney+ subscription. Want to watch Star Trek Picard, then you need CBS All access. The Witcher is on Netflix, and the Grand Tour is on Amazon Prime. Neither Stadia or Geforce Now has exclusives... yet, but PS Now certainly does. We're just opening up Pandora's Box if we allow these services to florish, besides that it has the potential to destroy console and PC gaming. It won't happen but throw in some timed exclusives and raise the price of gaming hardware and it might.
I find it highly unlikely that these services would ever destroy console or PC gaming. If we ever come to a time such that Starlink or some other 10ms or less 100mb+ connection is available to all and it doesn't make sense to own hardware anymore, sure. But, wake me up in about 50+ years whenever that could ever be a possibility. NVIDIA makes too much money off of hardware. GFN doesn't even support all games, on steam, much less GOG, Epic or MMOs, it's not the greatest, but if you play the games that are supported and you have good internet, it works quite well.
30 minute play session of GFN recorded by me:
Looks pretty good, some occasional fuzzies, but very playable and smooth, it looks
 
Last edited:

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
I haven't played fortnite or other FPS in a good 6-8 months... but kids are sleeping still so thought I'd fire it up on GFN...

I had like 8-15ms ping in fortnite.. 15-20ms to GFN.

smooth sailing.

1581170504554.png


1581170481166.png

1581170546304.png

1581170517111.png

1581170529977.png
 

Fifliffl

[H]Lite
Joined
Feb 24, 2017
Messages
124
I played the Witcher 3 in 4k streamed from my Steam account on the Nvidia Shield.. The save games even transfered back and forth from my PC to the Shield and vice versa. It looked way better on the shield, as my PC isn't too beefy anymore. I Didn't really notice any lag and it looked beautiful. This is a pretty cool development.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
Ok here are screenshots comparing image quality on my laptop (tried to get close to the same exact spot and time of day)
Both are running the same settings (all Epic). Ignore the lack of clouds also, for some reason the GeforceNow session had to clouds this time lol.
GeforceNow:
GNow.png

Native:
Native.png



As you can see the banding is pretty obvious...
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,585
Yeah the banding is there but I don't think I'd ever notice it tbh. That game in general is pretty ugly/laggy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this

DukenukemX

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,617
1. Will it cost $5 long term? probably not. but you're speculating, and as it stands it is either free for 1 hour sessions for $5 for unlimited, until it is stated otherwise and an annoucment has been made, guess what.. it's $5.
2. Speculation yet again, you havent utilized that system and you seem to have never utilized GFN
3. You realize GFN has multiple servers in multiple locations? It worked quite well in some hotels I've stayed at.
4. A switch...nevermind
1. It's not speculation when it's on Nvidia's website. See where it says limited time offer? That means it won't always be $5.
2. I honestly can't make heads or tails of your sentence. My PC or the one I linked? Exactly what speculation?
3. Yes, just like Stadia, thank you. Who would have known that Nvidia has multiple servers to support the Geforce Now service? Of course they have multiple servers, but that doesn't change the fact there's always input latency.
4. Hey don't knock it. It works without an internet connection :ROFLMAO: and since I hacked mine I can do more things than even Cloud Gaming offers. Plus it has physical input buttons.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-does-nvidia-make-money-2019-09-10Well, look at that, who would have thought, not a bit of revenue was made from server services such as GFN.
I don't think you read the article. It says, "GPU revenues refers to revenue generated from sale of graphic processor units primarily used in consumer PCs, professional PCs, and data centers " and there's "In addition, the company also sells some of its high-end GPUs directly to consumers through retailers such as Best Buy. ". They don't break down exactly how Nvidia makes their money.
Network degree...speed of light. k. I have 12-18ms latency to the GFN server, and in game have a latency anywhere from 10-40 depending on the game. So I average anywhere between 22-58. Ideal latency in online FPS type games is 50ms or less.. so 22-58 is in the pretty ideal range for FPS. (I suspect I have a GFN server in very close proximity), but honestly 90ms or less is pretty decent.
**Sigh**... Ok let me explain what you fail to understand. I talk about input lag latency which encompasses all latency, including network latency. When you hit the button on your input device it sends the data to Nvidia's servers at 12-18ms, which is really good like you live next to the server. Nvidia's sever is playing the game at 60fps which will create about 60-80ms of latency depending on the game, because games aren't input lag free. Nvidia's video encoder has to encode the video stream which creates another 2-5ms of latency. The data makes it back to you and your hardware has to decode it which is another 2-5ms of latency. Assuming your numbers are correct then you'll experience over 100ms of input latency. That's enough to notice it. At 150ms it begins to feel sluggish and annoying. At 200ms the game is unplayable.
lot of speculation from someone that seems to never have utilize the service. Let's just be a typical [H] human being here, spend 5 minutes and go look at the googles or reddit, don't take my word for it, there are hundreds/ thousands of reviews out already. Some are meh, others are competing and winning in competitive FPS games.
No thanks, I'm keeping that train wreck out of this station. I've read the limited reviews and reddit posts and people are experiencing the same problems as Stadia. Same thing like Staida where people said I should try the service instead of bash it. Nope, I have a thing called foresight.
Not everyone will have that perfect experience of course, but many will.. or no one would be willing to pay for it, and it would obviously go out of business right... I'm pretty sure that's how business works, bad product, no money, no business.
You would think but the temptation of money is too strong for companies. Stadia isn't done as they're making exclusives to try and push their platform, despite the horrible launch they had. I'm not even sure Geforce Now is having a launch since we've been through Nvidia's Streaming service multiple times already. Grid was introduced in 2008, so that makes Nvidia's cloud gaming service like 12 years old now. How many people use it, like 300,000 maybe? To give you an idea the Nokia N-Gage sold 3 million units, and that was considered a failure. For comparision the PS Now service which was released in 2014 has like 700,000 active users and that service actually has exclusive games.

I'd like to think NVIDIA is a pretty competent and has smart people in their ranks, or they wouldn't be in business.
People said the same thing about Stadia as well and look at where they are today. Microsoft stopped reporting Xbox One sales because they're super smart. I bet Nvidia can count all the way to potato.
Of course not everyone is going to have the same experience because.. guess what not everyone has the same ISP or good networking equipment in their house, a lot of people use the garbage router/modem combo from their ISP, I suspect they may suffer under streaming conditions. I'm sure you know all this with your networking degree though.
You do know that you're not making Geforce Now sound any better right? Also, I'm pretty sure I mentioned your points in another post of mine.
Ok here are screenshots comparing image quality on my laptop (tried to get close to the same exact spot and time of day)
Both are running the same settings (all Epic). Ignore the lack of clouds also, for some reason the GeforceNow session had to clouds this time lol.
GeforceNow:
View attachment 222066
Native:
View attachment 222067


As you can see the banding is pretty obvious...
Just as I expected, the image is suffering from color banding from video compression. You'll get a clearer picture from a Xbox One than this. My point is that people need to stop comparing it to a $1k let alone a $2k PC when this happens to the image. Makes you wonder how they'll pull off 4k?
 

ChadD

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,532
Just as I expected, the image is suffering from color banding from video compression. You'll get a clearer picture from a Xbox One than this. My point is that people need to stop comparing it to a $1k let alone a $2k PC when this happens to the image. Makes you wonder how they'll pull off 4k?
This is where you are missing the point.

It doesn't really fucking matter. The masses can't see the difference... and if they can they still don't care.

Now you know how audiophiles felt 15 years ago... and videophiles 10 years ago. Ya most of us here are gamephiles. We are not likely to own consoles unless we bought them for our kids, and we will drop more cash then the cost of a new console for a piece of hardware that will provide a very small upgrade in FPS and IQ. We are not the masses... and we are not who any of the streaming companies will be marketing too. The marketing packets aren't going to say look at this superior streamed image... they are going to say look how close this is to this $1000 GPU screencap. For the masses that believe their Xboxs are outputting 4k right now it will be good enough.

Also I'm sorry but a little bit of banding in a moving image in the SKY. Really average gamers can't see that if you plunk them down in front of it. Yes streaming on a good connection is as good as a $1-2k mid range gaming PC to the eyes of the vast majority of average gamers. Now you know how it feels when you tell people you can hear the difference in a high quality vinyl, or worse that you can hear the difference between a VBR MP3 and Flac and their eyes roll back in their head. Don't even get a video person started on black crush and the like on Netflix vs a decent Blu Ray. None of it matters... the masses can't tell or don't care. Streaming is going to make us cry the same tears the Audio and Video people did before us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this

zrikz

Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
878
1. It's not speculation when it's on Nvidia's website. See where it says limited time offer? That means it won't always be $5.
2. I honestly can't make heads or tails of your sentence. My PC or the one I linked? Exactly what speculation?
3. Yes, just like Stadia, thank you. Who would have known that Nvidia has multiple servers to support the Geforce Now service? Of course they have multiple servers, but that doesn't change the fact there's always input latency.
4. Hey don't knock it. It works without an internet connection :ROFLMAO: and since I hacked mine I can do more things than even Cloud Gaming offers. Plus it has physical input buttons.

I don't think you read the article. It says, "GPU revenues refers to revenue generated from sale of graphic processor units primarily used in consumer PCs, professional PCs, and data centers " and there's "In addition, the company also sells some of its high-end GPUs directly to consumers through retailers such as Best Buy. ". They don't break down exactly how Nvidia makes their money.



No thanks, I'm keeping that train wreck out of this station. I've read the limited reviews and reddit posts and people are experiencing the same problems as Stadia. Same thing like Staida where people said I should try the service instead of bash it. Nope, I have a thing called foresight.

You would think but the temptation of money is too strong for companies. Stadia isn't done as they're making exclusives to try and push their platform, despite the horrible launch they had. I'm not even sure Geforce Now is having a launch since we've been through Nvidia's Streaming service multiple times already. Grid was introduced in 2008, so that makes Nvidia's cloud gaming service like 12 years old now. How many people use it, like 300,000 maybe? To give you an idea the Nokia N-Gage sold 3 million units, and that was considered a failure. For comparision the PS Now service which was released in 2014 has like 700,000 active users and that service actually has exclusive games.


People said the same thing about Stadia as well and look at where they are today. Microsoft stopped reporting Xbox One sales because they're super smart. I bet Nvidia can count all the way to potato.

You do know that you're not making Geforce Now sound any better right? Also, I'm pretty sure I mentioned your points in another post of mine.

Just as I expected, the image is suffering from color banding from video compression. You'll get a clearer picture from a Xbox One than this. My point is that people need to stop comparing it to a $1k let alone a $2k PC when this happens to the image. Makes you wonder how they'll pull off 4k?
now I'm just responding because I'm bored before bed, because you seem to be of the type, given straight up empirical evidence from multiple sources refuting your "theories" because as you stated you haven't even attempted to use GFN, so absolutely everything you say is... guess what? speculation and a fallacy.

1. OMG Limited time offer, get it now before it goes up in price!! guess how many companies in the history of advertising use this marketing, when in fact, it doesn't. However, I do anticipate this price increasing at some point, but I suspect not within the next 6-12 months. What will it go up to?? who knows, but even if it goes up to $25 a month it's a good deal for those with good internet.
2. You literally linked a PC build, I said I you haven't utilized either the PC linked.. or GFN, simple to follow.
3. Yet again more garbage speculation. Just so we're on the same page: I say garbage because obviously you've never tried stadia either (don't get me wrong, stadia is absolutely garbage.. and I've never used it, I say that because they make you buy the games and they only work on stadia). back to the definition:
spec·u·la·tion
/ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

You have yet to even use GFN, and are basing your.. opinion ...on supposed theory by picking and choosing reviews, or attempting to utilize your misinformed education on networking.

I've been quite open, yeah it's not going to be perfect for everyone, but it's very viable, and it absolutely can outplay my 1070m.
I don't think you read the article.
I did.. but I don't think you managed to grasp the article, or know anything of how NVIDIA operates. Also, nvidia hasn't been a service provider until GFN came out... here you go, look at the full financial report... guess what.. still no service revenue.
Here ya go, full financial report:
https://s22.q4cdn.com/364334381/files/doc_financials/annual/2019/NVIDIA-2019-Annual-Report.pdf
**Sigh**... Ok let me explain what you fail to understand. I talk about input lag latency which encompasses all latency, including network latency. When you hit the button on your input device it sends the data to Nvidia's servers at 12-18ms, which is really good like you live next to the server. Nvidia's sever is playing the game at 60fps which will create about 60-80ms of latency depending on the game, because games aren't input lag free. Nvidia's video encoder has to encode the video stream which creates another 2-5ms of latency. The data makes it back to you and your hardware has to decode it which is another 2-5ms of latency. Assuming your numbers are correct then you'll experience over 100ms of input latency. That's enough to notice it. At 150ms it begins to feel sluggish and annoying. At 200ms the game is unplayable.
Your entire argument is a fallacy. None of it is based on your experience and it's just theory.
Yet again.. given multiple sources of empirical evidence... with screenshots, videos and a whole damn internet worth of reviews. As I've said before, it's absolutely not perfect for everyone, but based off of a shit ton of reviews on reddit and other sources, it works remarkably well and there is so little latency for those in which it does work, they are capable of competitively playing FPS type games.. which REQUIRES low latency.
I just played two more rounds of fortnite, came in 2nd and 4th place in squads.. with multiple kills, if I had over 100ms latency that wouldn't be possible. There is literally no discernible difference between my physical system and the GFN playing.


I'm uneducated on PS Now and it's services or how it operates so I can't hold a discussion on your points there.

This is where you are missing the point.

It doesn't really fucking matter. The masses can't see the difference... and if they can they still don't care.
Indeed this. Can I see some banding in some of those screenshots above? Maybe/probably. Can I notice it when I'm concentrating on having fun / winning in a game or just plain playing? no. If I really try and focus and look for it, yeah I can probably notice it. What I do notice is that GFN can run 2-3 levels higher in quality than my physical system (just for made up numbers purposes.. 25% better quality level). So even if there are compression issues, etc that reduce my visual experience by 10-15%... still ahead of my old broken physical system. I can absolutely tell the difference between low/medium and ultra. So if my ultra settings on GFN has some slight smoothing from compression, it still looks far better than my low/medium settings on a physical box.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
522
Also I'm sorry but a little bit of banding in a moving image in the SKY. Really average gamers can't see that if you plunk them down in front of it. Yes streaming on a good connection is as good as a $1-2k mid range gaming PC to the eyes of the vast majority of average gamers.
I'm sorry, did you not read my previous post where I gave my "more in depth" review of GeforeNow? It's not just banding...

99% of people are going to be on WiFi (and probably not even 5Ghz at that) not Ethernet, and 99% of people are NOT on a fiber connection. I would argue that an Xbox one non x has similar or better image quality than GeforceNow under these conditions, and things only get worse if someone starts a download or anything bandwidth intensive at all on another WiFi device...

The target market is going to be people that are too cheap to spend their money on anything decent, be it a console, laptop, internet, router, etc. How do you think the experience will be for them? Anybody that has a 1GB fiber connection at home I would assume would have some kind of "gaming device" be it console or PC.

In a perfect world this would work. But I can't see this working in the real world very well.
 

5150Joker

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
3,585
**Sigh**... Ok let me explain what you fail to understand. I talk about input lag latency which encompasses all latency, including network latency. When you hit the button on your input device it sends the data to Nvidia's servers at 12-18ms, which is really good like you live next to the server. Nvidia's sever is playing the game at 60fps which will create about 60-80ms of latency depending on the game, because games aren't input lag free. Nvidia's video encoder has to encode the video stream which creates another 2-5ms of latency. The data makes it back to you and your hardware has to decode it which is another 2-5ms of latency. Assuming your numbers are correct then you'll experience over 100ms of input latency. That's enough to notice it. At 150ms it begins to feel sluggish and annoying. At 200ms the game is unplayable.
60 fps is 60-80 ms latency? What kind of fuzzy math are you doing? You're literally making these numbers up.

No thanks, I'm keeping that train wreck out of this station. I've read the limited reviews and reddit posts and people are experiencing the same problems as Stadia. Same thing like Staida where people said I should try the service instead of bash it. Nope, I have a thing called foresight.
I posted a 30 minute video, I can assure you the latency was very manageable and I'm a competitive player.


Just as I expected, the image is suffering from color banding from video compression. You'll get a clearer picture from a Xbox One than this. My point is that people need to stop comparing it to a $1k let alone a $2k PC when this happens to the image. Makes you wonder how they'll pull off 4k?
No you won't get nearly the same performance or image from Xbox One, you're just making bs up and trolling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zrikz
like this

MangoSeed

Gawd
Joined
Oct 15, 2014
Messages
680
The target market is going to be people that are too cheap to spend their money on anything decent, be it a console, laptop, internet, router, etc. How do you think the experience will be for them? Anybody that has a 1GB fiber connection at home I would assume would have some kind of "gaming device" be it console or PC.
Thats an impressive number of arbitrary and incorrect assumptions for one paragraph. Having a fast internet connection has no obvious correlation with owning a console or gaming PC.
 
Top