NVIDIA Announces Project Shield

[serious]

It seems at least 100 ms is confirmed and you hardly acknowledge FXAA's image degradation. Hope you raise your standards by then.

Please excuse my math.

100ms is the average input delay from consoles, which consists of game pipeline alone on those 7-8 years old tech. Clearly, PC has far lower game pipeline latency. Cloud gaming works because the latency of game pipeline (50ms) + encode (10ms) + network (internet)(30ms) + decode (5ms) = 95ms (http://www.nvidia.ca/object/cloud-gaming-benefits.html), faster than or equal to the performance of consoles.

In a simple network configuration, which consists on 1 router + a few node, the network latency between nodes is roughly 3 ms), which brings the above equation to under 70ms, which is far better than any consoles released today. Note that the latency from encode and decode is 15ms, meaning SHIELD simply add 1-2 frames delay towards PC gaming,

By default, Nvidia driver can queue up to 3 frames to smooth out FPS, things like triple buffering adds 1 frame delay to avoid tearing, that is 16.67ms at 60FPS, while human reaction on the other hand exceed 200ms on average.

Excuse me if I have made any mistakes.

 

[Elios]

I am not sure what to pick. A $999 steam box, PS4 with its new anti used game feature, xbox720, or shield.

Xbo720 or what ever its called will have the same kind of anti used game stuff as PS4
ie both systems will tie your games to your account think like CD keys we use now for PCs

 

[wonderfield]

It seems at least 100 ms is confirmed

It isn't a question of what the latency is or isn't but how perceptible the typical person will find it. Like I said earlier, people are seeing a number they feel is astronomically high, but not putting the number into any kind of perspective. It's not yet completely clear how the latency actually impacts the experience.

100ms seems within the realm of acceptability for something like this, at least for games that aren't super-twitchy.

 

[Snowdog]

It isn't a question of what the latency is or isn't but how perceptible the typical person will find it. Like I said earlier, people are seeing a number they feel is astronomically high, but not putting the number into any kind of perspective. It's not yet completely clear how the latency actually impacts the experience.

100ms seems within the realm of acceptability for something like this, at least for games that aren't super-twitchy.

I will agree that people often over react about to 20-30ms of lag, but adding 100ms is huge amount almost anyone will likely notices.

When I switched from CRT to Dell 2405, it felt like everything was in molasses, I switched back to CRT and it was like it was like my controls were telepathic. The lag on the Dell 2405 was likely in the 40-60 ms range, and this is twice that.

I can't see many serious PC gamers tolerating that kind of lag to have a wireless connection (along with H.264 artifacts), when they can just connect directly and have no lag or artifacts. This is a gimmick that is getting way more notice than it deserves.

 

[Jbort1984]

will i be able to keep my 3x 7950 current cards and add in a 4th gtx 660 to use this. or does my main card need to be an nvidia card

 

[bexamous]

We're not talking about monitor lag.

Someone else posted this:
http://www.nvidia.ca/object/cloud-gaming-benefits.html

Look at the little graph. We're not talking about monitor lag, that is the same whether you use a computer, shield thing, or a console. We're talking about the time between you pressing a button, and the signal being sent to the display.

The reasoning is, because consoles are so slow, and because computers are so fast, even if it also has to encode video, send it over wifi, and decode it, it still ends up being as fast.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/132122/measuring_responsiveness_in_video_.php?print=1

Here is link I posted earlier measuring time from input to display (using a crt so the display's lag is trivial), so what really is being measured is processing time on console. Depending on game, delay was 66-133ms.

 

[Snowdog]

The reasoning is, because consoles are so slow, and because computers are so fast, even if it also has to encode video, send it over wifi, and decode it, it still ends up being as fast.

That really doesn't hold water unless you plan to always play your PC games with this lag and get used to it. If you switch between playing on your TV and your desktop, the lag will annoy you and throw you off.

Then you have the H264 artifacts.

All things you could avoid with a simple long HDMI cable.

This is a Niche gimmick.

 

[bexamous]

That really doesn't hold water unless you plan to always play your PC games with this lag and get used to it. If you switch between playing on your TV and your desktop, the lag will annoy you and throw you off.

Sitting in front of a monitor with a keyboard/mouse vs sitting on your couch with a crappy controller isn't going to be the same. All that really matters is people play console games with some amount of end to end lag and find it acceptable, the Shield thing is no worse, so it should be equally acceptable.

I'm not really that interested in the streaming feature for myself, but I'm not really seeing how lag is going to be a show stopper to whoever sees it as something useful. You're just looking for problems with no real evidence they exist. What H264 artifacts? The only people who used it didn't say they had any problems. And long HDMI assumes you're TV is close enough and you're okay with a cable running down the hallway... also that you even want to play on the TV and didn't just want to play on the integrated screen.

 

[Acoustique]

Ive actually been comfortably able to stream darks souls and stream that to my phone with simple android software,needs to be seamless and work with the clcik of a button, i forsee this being used for toilet breaks in games where you were using the 360 remote.

Wish they put 3g support and a more compact size i'd use it for a phone, maybe thats next after everyone has bought one, oh btw guys now here is our phone

 

[MrAgmoore]

Another dumb piece of shit by manufacturers / designers who are not gamers.

 

[magoo]

So...............

how many of these things do you think nvidia will sell?

I can't imagine they will be overly successful unless they are really cheap.......which I doubt.

I could just see my son losing his temper and tossing this thing across the room.....

 

[USMCGrunt]

I'm not really that interested in the streaming feature for myself, but I'm not really seeing how lag is going to be a show stopper to whoever sees it as something useful.

Not seeing how lag is a showstopper...come on dude, seriously??? Almost all games...no, almost ANYTHING people do today with computers, people expect an expediate and expected result. For the tech savvy like most of us here on [H], we have a bit more patience because we may know a little bit about whats going on in the background but for the GP, they're impatient, wanted-the-answer-10-seconds-before-I-asked-the-question consumers.

Games showcased in the demo were Hawken (FPS mech shooter), COD: BLOPS (FPS modern shooter), and....boxing (3rd person boxing, duh). All three examples demand an instant response to a requested input. While human reaction may be 200ms (as stated in other posts here), human perception is much quicker than that. I can feel a difference playing an FPS at 150ms (probably closer to 80+ but being conservative) of latency and, while I might be a minority in being able to detect that, im not so special that my demographic is negligable. Latency is a HUGE factor here, probably the single most important factor of them all. Why the hell would I drop the major coin on this thing to sit in an adjacent room to my computer, that can't be used by anyone else while im streaming the game to the Shield and then put up with waiting nearly 1/4 second to see the response on screen...1/4 of a second is HUGE in FPS games...EASILY noticeable.

Hey, I hope the idea takes off and is a hit, I like my big boy toys and anybody that creates something new and interesting has got my money but there just seems to be too many cons to it right now. You HAVE to have a Nvidia 650 or higher card...im not sure what Nvidia's market share is right now, let alone whittling it down to only current gen. cards, but that requirement alone severely cuts into this things marketability (for the streaming feature). Then, its been stated to only work over wifi AND still requires the PC to display the game while its being streamed...there's another cut into potential informed buyers. If I had a family and the kid or wife or myself wanted to play a game while one of the others used the computer for an alternate activity, we couldn't. Finally (on my list of cons), why the hell would I, or most other gamers that have a system running a current gen. video card with, most likely, a 20+ inch HD+ resolution display, want to go into another room and game on a 7 inch (though beautiful looking) display with what basically amounts to an Xbox 360 controller? I'd say that facet would ALSO cut into market share. Of course, I could probably connect BT or USB keyboard and mouse but then that takes portability away.

 

[BlueStorm]

Not seeing how lag is a showstopper...come on dude, seriously??? Almost all games...no, almost ANYTHING people do today with computers, people expect an expediate and expected result. For the tech savvy like most of us here on [H], we have a bit more patience because we may know a little bit about whats going on in the background but for the GP, they're impatient, wanted-the-answer-10-seconds-before-I-asked-the-question consumers.

Games showcased in the demo were Hawken (FPS mech shooter), COD: BLOPS (FPS modern shooter), and....boxing (3rd person boxing, duh). All three examples demand an instant response to a requested input. While human reaction may be 200ms (as stated in other posts here), human perception is much quicker than that. I can feel a difference playing an FPS at 150ms (probably closer to 80+ but being conservative) of latency and, while I might be a minority in being able to detect that, im not so special that my demographic is negligable. Latency is a HUGE factor here, probably the single most important factor of them all. Why the hell would I drop the major coin on this thing to sit in an adjacent room to my computer, that can't be used by anyone else while im streaming the game to the Shield and then put up with waiting nearly 1/4 second to see the response on screen...1/4 of a second is HUGE in FPS games...EASILY noticeable.

Hey, I hope the idea takes off and is a hit, I like my big boy toys and anybody that creates something new and interesting has got my money but there just seems to be too many cons to it right now. You HAVE to have a Nvidia 650 or higher card...im not sure what Nvidia's market share is right now, let alone whittling it down to only current gen. cards, but that requirement alone severely cuts into this things marketability (for the streaming feature). Then, its been stated to only work over wifi AND still requires the PC to display the game while its being streamed...there's another cut into potential informed buyers. If I had a family and the kid or wife or myself wanted to play a game while one of the others used the computer for an alternate activity, we couldn't. Finally (on my list of cons), why the hell would I, or most other gamers that have a system running a current gen. video card with, most likely, a 20+ inch HD+ resolution display, want to go into another room and game on a 7 inch (though beautiful looking) display with what basically amounts to an Xbox 360 controller? I'd say that facet would ALSO cut into market share. Of course, I could probably connect BT or USB keyboard and mouse but then that takes portability away.

You're exaggerating. It won't be a wait of a quarter second.

If you'd done some research, you'd know that at 40fps (which is considered acceptable today when gaming on PC), when gpu bound, Windows is queuing up 3 frames. Meaning there are command buffers with commands the gpu needs to execute/render for 3 frames in a line, waiting on the gpu to become available. These frames are just a buffer of commands sitting between their point of origin... The button press/game engine... And their point of rendering/display... The GPU. So pressing a button will take 3x the render time of a single frame just to see the result of the button press on screen IN WINDOWS LOCAL PC GAMING TODAY.

1000ms/40fps= 25ms per frame.

25ms*3 frames= 75ms of input latency

That's what you have TODAY on your PC game, MINIMUM in a GPU bound config (I detail this because when not gpu bound, there is no opportunity for the OS to queue frames). Not to mention the game engine and input handling drivers in the OS and CPU preemption (OS splitting cycles with other running processes) and displays/monitors result in additional latency in the pipe in Windows today.

They've stated this device gets 100ms latency from button press to muzzle flash on the screen, which includes ALL the pieces I mentioned above. That's not really any worse than PC gaming today, and is less than consoles have.

 

[jwcalla]

Not seeing how lag is a showstopper...come on dude, seriously??? Almost all games...no, almost ANYTHING people do today with computers, people expect an expediate and expected result. For the tech savvy like most of us here on [H], we have a bit more patience because we may know a little bit about whats going on in the background but for the GP, they're impatient, wanted-the-answer-10-seconds-before-I-asked-the-question consumers.

Hey, I hope the idea takes off and is a hit, I like my big boy toys and anybody that creates something new and interesting has got my money but there just seems to be too many cons to it right now.

But you're kinda assuming this thing will have an unacceptable level of latency or lag when we really don't know that for sure yet. Technology is aggressively expanding and many of these common problems are getting solutions. It's possible that Iteration 1 might not be so great... but who knows, maybe the next version gets all the kinks ironed out.

I probably won't get one just because I'm in no position to spend money on something like this right now, but I give them props for taking a risk, putting it out there, and trying something a little unorthodox. It's far more encouraging to see this then what I see from a lot of the other tech companies today, many of which are sitting on their laurels and mailing it in quarter after quarter.

 

[Snowdog]

That's not really any worse than PC gaming today.

It can only be worse.

Whatever PC lag is today, this will only add more to it.

It will PC Lag + Encode/Decode Lag.

Also how much does this slow your GPU if you are near the minimum spec?

Then there are H.264 artifacts. Normal video is soft, so artifacts aren't that prevalent, but game graphics tend to be ultra sharp, artifacts will be more obvious.

I get a chuckle that some think this is a big deal.

My PC which is already direct connected to my HDTV is a much better solution. No additional lag, load, or artifacts and I don't have to wait 6 months or pay a dime to do it.

 

[BlueStorm]

It can only be worse.

Whatever PC lag is today, this will only add more to it.

It will PC Lag + Encode/Decode Lag.

Also how much does this slow your GPU if you are near the minimum spec?

Then there are H.264 artifacts. Normal video is soft, so artifacts aren't that prevalent, but game graphics tend to be ultra sharp, artifacts will be more obvious.

I get a chuckle that some think this is a big deal.

My PC which is already direct connected to my HDTV is a much better solution. No additional lag, load, or artifacts and I don't have to wait 6 months or pay a dime to do it.

Normally yes this adds to it but remember that they already stated the whole process is under 100ms. I only showed how today were already there. So maybe they're avoiding queuing frames or something at the expense of a little bit of raw performance (the whole reason to decouple the CPU and GPU with a 3 frame buffer in the first place).

The point is that in the end it's already been stated that end to end it's 100ms... It doesn't matter how much latency those steps add if the end latency is still roughly where things are today. That just means those extra steps are insignificant amounts of latency in the local network case.

 

[Snowdog]

Normally yes this adds to it but remember that they already stated the whole process is under 100ms. I only showed how today were already there. So maybe they're avoiding queuing frames or something at the expense of a little bit of raw performance (the whole reason to decouple the CPU and GPU with a 3 frame buffer in the first place).

The point is that in the end it's already been stated that end to end it's 100ms... It doesn't matter how much latency those steps add if the end latency is still roughly where things are today. That just means those extra steps are insignificant amounts of latency in the local network case.

This is pre-release hype for a non-shipping, in development product.

You are making quite some leaps if you think there is no exaggerations in their claims.

And an even bigger leap if you think this won't add lag.

 

[BlueStorm]

This is pre-release hype for a non-shipping, in development product.

You are making quite some leaps if you think there is no exaggerations in their claims.

And an even bigger leap if you think this won't add lag.

I dont think you understand. Utilizing specialized dedicated hardware makes it possible to add an insignificant amount of time to encode decode. For example. 15ms is a lot of input latency to add if you used to have 10ms of latency. Adding 15ms when you used to have near 100ms is insignificant, especially when consoles have more today and they seem to do just fine.

Also, controller joysticks do a lot to mask input latency (because it feels like the stick is just less sensitive, not lagged) and console makers have benefitted from that fact for years.

And it's not just claims from NV. Anand and PCPer have both noted no noticeable input lag from *using the damn thing in hand*. This sort of confirms the latency claims.

It's interesting that you started off trying to prove that the added latency will matter (make or break) then switched to trying to say theres no reason for believing the latency claims will be accurate.

 

[jwcalla]

This is pre-release hype for a non-shipping, in development product.

You are making quite some leaps if you think there is no exaggerations in their claims.

And an even bigger leap if you think this won't add lag.

I'm sure their claims are exaggerated. But to see some dismiss the product out of hand with a whole slew of unfounded complaints without even having the thing yet is kind of ignorant.

 

[Snowdog]

Also, controller joysticks do a lot to mask input latency (because it feels like the stick is just less sensitive, not lagged) and console makers have benefitted from that fact for years.

Which explains why lag wasn't that noticeable during a couple of quick demos. The warts will come out, when the real thing ships.

But no matter how well executed, this is largely a gimmick that will only apply to a tiny niche of the market.

 

[Lorien]

Oh and here's a tidbit no one has asked and I've not seen it mentioned in any of the presentation videos. If you have an SLI system (that meets the required gtx650+ and above specs) you will need to disable one of the cards to be able to stream to the Shield. Don't ask me how I know this.

 

[spookyxelectric]

My PC which is already direct connected to my HDTV is a much better solution. No additional lag, load, or artifacts and I don't have to wait 6 months or pay a dime to do it.

If your only goal is to connect your PC to your TV, yes, that is the best solution. You can do it today at no additional charge, just plug in any HDMI cord. But it isn't the only feature of the Shield. It also has an attached display to the controller, which basically makes it handheld system that plays your existing PC library. You could get a laptop to play from your bed, but it'd be larger, heavier, more expensive, generate more heat, and probably not run as well your PC unless you had a mid-tier PC and a top-tier laptop.

 

[Lorien]

But it isn't the only feature of the Shield. It also has an attached display to the controller, which basically makes it handheld system that plays your existing PC library.

We don't need shield to do any of that already:
http://www.splashtop.com/home
http://www.kainy.com/whatiskainy.html

Both of these solutions free you from the requirement of buying an Nvidia video card and the Shield and are available today and at a minuscule cost.

 

[Snowdog]

If your only goal is to connect your PC to your TV, yes, that is the best solution. You can do it today at no additional charge, just plug in any HDMI cord. But it isn't the only feature of the Shield. It also has an attached display to the controller, which basically makes it handheld system that plays your existing PC library. You could get a laptop to play from your bed, but it'd be larger, heavier, more expensive, generate more heat, and probably not run as well your PC unless you had a mid-tier PC and a top-tier laptop.

Lets be clear it isn't playing PC games it is streaming them. Your PC is still tied up while you do this.

It is still the same useless gimmick. I can't think of single PC game I play that would even be playable on the 5" screen. Maybe if I wanted to play Angry Birds PC it could adequately play that on a 5" screen.

Really we should stop concentrating on gimmicks like in house streaming your PC games to inferior controls/screens, and look at it's primary function which is an Android game machine.

 

[USMCGrunt]

You're exaggerating. It won't be a wait of a quarter second.

If you'd done some research, you'd know that at 40fps (which is considered acceptable today when gaming on PC), when gpu bound, Windows is queuing up 3 frames. Meaning there are command buffers with commands the gpu needs to execute/render for 3 frames in a line, waiting on the gpu to become available. These frames are just a buffer of commands sitting between their point of origin... The button press/game engine... And their point of rendering/display... The GPU. So pressing a button will take 3x the render time of a single frame just to see the result of the button press on screen IN WINDOWS LOCAL PC GAMING TODAY.

1000ms/40fps= 25ms per frame.

25ms*3 frames= 75ms of input latency

That's what you have TODAY on your PC game, MINIMUM in a GPU bound config (I detail this because when not gpu bound, there is no opportunity for the OS to queue frames). Not to mention the game engine and input handling drivers in the OS and CPU preemption (OS splitting cycles with other running processes) and displays/monitors result in additional latency in the pipe in Windows today.

They've stated this device gets 100ms latency from button press to muzzle flash on the screen, which includes ALL the pieces I mentioned above. That's not really any worse than PC gaming today, and is less than consoles have.

First, they only said its about 100ms of latency from button push to muzzle flash. Due to the nature of marketing, you and I both know that this is an entirely open ended statement that could be, 100ms total latency OR 100ms of additional latency. I also don't see how im exaggerating...if I am remembering right, 1000ms = 1 second....so 250ms of latency is 1/4 of a second. If I am connected to a server on my PC with a latency of 100ms, and then I add another 100ms of latency by streaming to shield that results in a total latency of 200ms. Add an HDMI cable from shield to TV, then we have the added delay of the TV. I think in my example I said 60ms because that's what they said in the video as being worst case scenario for some televisions..I honestly don't know what kind of response times LCD/Plasma/Projector televisions have. So adding in worst case tv latency we come to 260ms...a shade over 1/4 of a second.

We've all experienced the "dog and pony show" as well, in the work place, when we go to a friends house that has little terrors running around, and even at CES. The prime example that sticks out in my mind is the next gen video card Nvidia showed off a few years back that wasn't actually there...just a mock up. Once these things are in the hands of review houses and allowed to be put through their paces, we'll see how it really performs.

Regardless of the latency, there are still the other points I made that still stand.

Again, I hope the thing performs as advertised, I like my big boy toys.

 

[rinaldo00]

If your only goal is to connect your PC to your TV, yes, that is the best solution. You can do it today at no additional charge, just plug in any HDMI cord. But it isn't the only feature of the Shield. It also has an attached display to the controller, which basically makes it handheld system that plays your existing PC library. You could get a laptop to play from your bed, but it'd be larger, heavier, more expensive, generate more heat, and probably not run as well your PC unless you had a mid-tier PC and a top-tier laptop.

They can market this as a tool for the PC gamer addict that cannot stop playing his game for a potty break! Just take this thing to the toilet and game on

Seriously though, I cannot see many people that invested in a serries 6 GPU wanting to play their games on a 5" screen.

 

[Semantics]

They can market this as a tool for the PC gamer addict that cannot stop playing his game for a potty break! Just take this thing to the toilet and game on

Seriously though, I cannot see many people that invested in a serries 6 GPU wanting to play their games on a 5" screen.

Nvidia is just endorsing insomnia late night playing that thing in your bed never going to sleep XD, i assume probably like most people it's a niche market along with having to have atleast one of their latest gpus to use it meaning this thing isn't going to be a nice price point of like 100 bucks because there wouldn't be much profit in that and it's not a high volume item. That being said this i take this as a better idea then the steam box. Plus it's just a nice platform for nvidia to showcase it's tech for other companies. Because lets face it if you're using this thing to play games you're playing either with that controller all the time or you're not going to use it because who wants to relearn the controls for a game mid way though it making a transition keyboard to controller.

 

[FrgMstr]

I for one am excited to get one in my hands, in my home, and use it then judge the thing. And we will surely share our thoughts.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

crap idea, not going to fly....

 

[rinaldo00]

Nvidia is just endorsing insomnia late night playing that thing in your bed never going to sleep XD, i assume probably like most people it's a niche market along with having to have atleast one of their latest gpus to use it meaning this thing isn't going to be a nice price point of like 100 bucks because there wouldn't be much profit in that and it's not a high volume item. That being said this i take this as a better idea then the steam box..

Why would you say that? At least the Steam Box does not tie up your PC while playing one game.

 

[Semantics]

Why would you say that? At least the Steam Box does not tie up your PC while playing one game.

Game selection

the steambox has only games for steam on linux that's very limiting, if it can't attract AAA titles to the platform it's an auto bust. The thing is probably going to be on the wrong end of 300 bucks else it's just a dolled up oyua not a serious gaming platform. Why throw down money to play pc games on a controller on a tv when you can just buy a hdmi cable and a controller for much less and not be limited to linux steam only game selections, because it's simplier? So it's not going to garner much form their core audience the PC gaming crowd so then it's competing with consoles, okay so what exclusives will it have? What range of great games will it have that the next gen of microsoft or sony consoles wont.

I like the shield better because it's just a nice thing to have it's not quite it's own thing it's like a snazzy accessory. Do i think it will sell well probably not more so then nvidia's 3d kits because it's already limited who could buy it by gpu, and not everyone who has their newest gen of gpu's are going to snatch one up unless it's super cheap which it's probably not. But i like it better it's a new thing a collimation of excising tech in a cool new package, all the steambox is just a pc with some valve decals. Ofc that makes it a gaming pc remember all the stickers you get from buying parts gotta put them all over your pc it's how we know it's [H]

 

[rinaldo00]

Game selection

the steambox has only games for steam on linux that's very limiting

Oooh, I thought it did ALL Steam games. Linux only? That IS very limiting.

 

[BlueStorm]

First, they only said its about 100ms of latency from button push to muzzle flash. Due to the nature of marketing, you and I both know that this is an entirely open ended statement that could be, 100ms total latency OR 100ms of additional latency. I also don't see how im exaggerating...if I am remembering right, 1000ms = 1 second....so 250ms of latency is 1/4 of a second. If I am connected to a server on my PC with a latency of 100ms, and then I add another 100ms of latency by streaming to shield that results in a total latency of 200ms. Add an HDMI cable from shield to TV, then we have the added delay of the TV. I think in my example I said 60ms because that's what they said in the video as being worst case scenario for some televisions..I honestly don't know what kind of response times LCD/Plasma/Projector televisions have. So adding in worst case tv latency we come to 260ms...a shade over 1/4 of a second.

We've all experienced the "dog and pony show" as well, in the work place, when we go to a friends house that has little terrors running around, and even at CES. The prime example that sticks out in my mind is the next gen video card Nvidia showed off a few years back that wasn't actually there...just a mock up. Once these things are in the hands of review houses and allowed to be put through their paces, we'll see how it really performs.

Regardless of the latency, there are still the other points I made that still stand.

Again, I hope the thing performs as advertised, I like my big boy toys.

Im telling you as a fact that its 100ms ... Not "in addition to". That's what button to muzzle flash means. There is no other way to interpret it.

And your reference to the Fermi intro at GTC is a bad example. The gpu existed and it ran a simulation that people who watched saw. That was live GF100 period. But it was a first revision of the chip and also it did not have a final cooler so the board looked like a bit of a science experiment. Hence the mockup with "wood screws". Lack of a gpu under the mock up cooler doesn't make the actual gf100 that was there running the simulation any less real.

In short, you're looking for a conspiracy where none exists. You're manufacturing the 250ms figure by bogus math, and of the possible interpretation of information before you, you're choosing the interpretation that has the max input latency.

Yet another fact is that OnLives latency going out over the Internet to a datacenter was closer to a quarter or half second. This shield thing is fucking local. Ever pinged a PC on your LAN? It says < 1ms for the ping response. The network latency was the longest pole. This solution eliminates it by keeping it local.

Not sure how many more pieces of data you need until you get this.

 

[Lorien]

Game selection

the steambox has only games for steam on linux that's very limiting,

Totally Incorrect.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852144/gabe-newell-interview-steam-box-future-of-gaming
From Gabe Newell's own mouth:

We’ll come out with our own and we’ll sell it to consumers by ourselves. That’ll be a Linux box, [and] if you want to install Windows you can. We’re not going to make it hard. This is not some locked box by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Semantics]

Totally Incorrect.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/8/3852144/gabe-newell-interview-steam-box-future-of-gaming
From Gabe Newell's own mouth:

How is that incorrect in my assessment i'm sorry but if the target audience is the console crowd; then it is unlikely they are going to load windows onto a usb and install it then work out the whole driver issue. By design it's mean to run Linux and steam only games if you're willing to load windows on a usb you're probably good enough to buy a hdmi cable and a controller and just hook up your computer to your tv. Or just so happens you could use NVidia's project shield XD we just found target audience for NVidia's product hahaha

 

[jwcalla]

How is that incorrect in my assessment i'm sorry but if the target audience is the console crowd; then it is unlikely they are going to load windows onto a usb and install it then work out the whole driver issue. By design it's mean to run Linux and steam only games if you're willing to load windows on a usb you're probably good enough to buy a hdmi cable and a controller and just hook up your computer to your tv. Or just so happens you could use NVidia's project shield XD we just found target audience for NVidia's product hahaha

It's true that the Steam Box will first launch with a limited library of games [for those who don't want to install Windows], but this is a fairly common occurrence for all consoles.

It seems that the modern Source games will be ported however. And with a new Source engine in the works, perhaps there'll be a big launch title. But admittedly that's just speculation on my part.

 

[Ritorix]

Ever pinged a PC on your LAN? It says < 1ms for the ping response. The network latency was the longest pole. This solution eliminates it by keeping it local.

Not sure how many more pieces of data you need until you get this.

Compression/decompression time. Adding that on both ends of transmissions should be the majority of any latency. The rest would come from the Shield's own rendering.

 

[BlueStorm]

Compression/decompression time. Adding that on both ends of transmissions should be the majority of any latency. The rest would come from the Shield's own rendering.

No no no no.

We've covered this. End to end is 100ms. Normal PC gaming latency can be around 75ms in just the runtime queue, then you add some for the mouse input handling, and display. The time for compression and decompression encode/decode is clearly not very much. That's the whole idea behind doing it with dedicated hardware.

Simple math.

We know PC gaming input latency today is fine in cases when input latency is approaching 100ms. We've been told that end to end with streaming is 100ms. What does that imply about the the added steps for streaming? That they're cheap.

 

[Snowdog]

No no no no.

We've covered this. End to end is 100ms. Normal PC gaming latency can be around 75ms in just the runtime queue.

We have heard your repeated claims. But what you claim above is worse than 60fps Console games as actually shown earlier in the thread (60ms total).

So you are now claiming PC games are worse than console games in your attempt to whitewash any introduced lag by the NVidia streaming device.

 

[Meeho]

If you'd done some research, you'd know that at 40fps (which is considered acceptable today when gaming on PC), when gpu bound, Windows is queuing up 3 frames. Meaning there are command buffers with commands the gpu needs to execute/render for 3 frames in a line, waiting on the gpu to become available. These frames are just a buffer of commands sitting between their point of origin... The button press/game engine... And their point of rendering/display... The GPU. So pressing a button will take 3x the render time of a single frame just to see the result of the button press on screen IN WINDOWS LOCAL PC GAMING TODAY.

Any links to back this up? It doesn't make sense. And 40 fps is borderline acceptable for some games only.