Stadia not so good after all?

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,279
If only latency wasn't already something online games have been dealing with for ages... oh ya wait that's right it is.

I may agree that some current games are not well designed to be streamed and will probably have to much input lag. Lets get serious people have been playing MMOs and online shooters for a long time now.

The only difference is streaming requires more width on the pipe. Sure you have to stream compressed video without buffering anything... but latency is no different. Most people play MMOs very comfortably at 70-150ms lag times.

Perhaps it isn't a good thing but over the next number of years a lot of developers are going to be tuning their game design and their engines for streaming. If a specific type of game is less likely to suffer input lag that is what we are going to see flood the market. Publishers want streaming to happen it would have to be damn near completely unplayable for them to not push it at this point. Its the evolution of DRM. lol
That’s not the same at all. If I play a FPS on a console with 120ms online lag the actual game itself will still feel fine (under 16ms).

Stadia is comparing apples to oranges, playing Uncharted 3 MP through PS Now and playing it on an actual PS3 is worlds apart in terms of user experience. Anyone who is bothered by high input lag from controller to screen is going to have a very difficult time with Stadia or any streaming service.

I’m highly sensitive to that, but I can play on servers at 150ms and be fine.
 

WarriorX

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
2,059
It doesn't matter who this is for. Its going to end up badly for everybody once publishers see the $$$$ from reduced piracy. Unless the game files are leaked, hard to pirate a game thats being streamed. Cloud gaming needs to die. Everyone complains about how we don't own our media/games. Who knows what they would do next. Expiring licenses, sorry can only see worst case scenarios and nothing good from this tech.

This service will be designed to screw you over, period. Plus it will probably still have MTXs. Can see the suits fainting at these possibilities. I think this is worst then the current micro transaction trends.

I don't see any good that can come from this based on recent actions of publishers. If you think this is won't happen and I am worried about nothing... I would love to be proved wrong.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
It doesn't matter who this is for. Its going to end up badly for everybody once publishers see the $$$$ from reduced piracy. Unless the game files are leaked, hard to pirate a game thats being streamed.
I think a lot of gamers are at a point where they just avoid the new games coming out. I use my PC to play Brutal Doom, and before I was playing Ori and the Blind Forest. Not exactly pushing my PC to its limits. If it gets to that point when AAA gaming studios make shitty games, then I'll play older better games. Been meaning to play Wticher 3 and Fallout New Vegas for a while now, and that's just the tip of my backlog of games I'd like to replay. At least I hear Borderlands 3 isn't bad, and Red Dead Redemption 2 is coming out.
Cloud gaming needs to die. Everyone complains about how we don't own our media/games. Who knows what they would do next. Expiring licenses, sorry can only see worst case scenarios and nothing good from this tech.
The situation is not in their favor. I'm surprised that first party games are legal considering how laws were changed for media like 70 years ago. Remember, the middle isn't between what companies want and what consumers want, but it's just what consumers want. If companies have that kind of power then more regulations and enforcement of laws are needed. Don't think that won't happen

I don't see any good that can come from this based on recent actions of publishers. If you think this is won't happen and I am worried about nothing... I would love to be proved wrong.
Yea no, it won't. Like I said, cloud gaming has no itch to scratch or benefit to be had for consumers. Lots more downsides than upsides. Lots of assumptions are being made over how cloud gaming is going to work.

1. They're assuming that people have good internet connections.
2. They're assuming that people don't have to deal with data caps. Wasn't it in the news that Comcast "accidentally" charge customers for data caps? Gonna be a lot more of those with cloud gaming.
3. They're assuming you're fine with latency. Seriously, this one is absolutely stupid. I would rage quit so hard if I knew I'm losing because of input lag.
4. They're assuming you're ok with paying a monthly fee to play a game you bought full price. I think this one will turn away people more than anything else.

I can say with confidence that cloud gaming is dead before it arrived. Thanks to the laws of physics, it will continue to stay like that until we find a way to transmit data faster than the speed of light.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,588
Hardcore gamer's wont approve of the service, but it's not hardcore gamer's Google are hoping to attract. the problem is if they get enough average gamers switching to the service, eventually game developers could take notice in which case the hardcore gamer's cries of latency will go unnoticed - Just like the video/audiophile in relation to streaming technologies.

How good is capitalism.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
Hardcore gamer's wont approve of the service, but it's not hardcore gamer's Google are hoping to attract. the problem is if they get enough average gamers switching to the service, eventually game developers could take notice in which case the hardcore gamer's cries of latency will go unnoticed - Just like the video/audiophile in relation to streaming technologies.

How good is capitalism.
That assumes it gets to the point where it is "good enough" like video streaming has. The problem of latency isn't just a "hardcore" gamer issue here, its going to be an issue for the mainstream audience as well.
 

vegeta535

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,798
I can see these cloud gaming service possibly be successful. You got to look at the people they are going to market towards. It is not the hardcore gamers. It is the stupid people that gladly accept anything these AAA companies put out their. All the MT buyer who don't care. They just want their instant gratification and want everything handed to them. They just want their next CoD game and don't care how they get it.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
Hardcore gamer's wont approve of the service, but it's not hardcore gamer's Google are hoping to attract. the problem is if they get enough average gamers switching to the service, eventually game developers could take notice in which case the hardcore gamer's cries of latency will go unnoticed - Just like the video/audiophile in relation to streaming technologies.

How good is capitalism.
That's my point #3, in that you assume the audience won't care about latency. It depends on the game but for the most part you'll notice it. First person shooters are going to be a nightmare on cloud gaming because you have to aim with your mouse or analog stick.

This is not comparable to audio streaming quality or 1080p vs 4K kinda thing. The moment you hit the button on your controller there's an immediate and noticeable difference. The thing people won't notice is when money is slowly removed from their pockets over time, which is the point of cloud gaming. Sure 1080p is free now, but like all services that can change over time. If they don't, then the image quality and response time will, to push you into the 4k Tier. Like Netflix, that $10 per month turns into $11 and then $12. People in general are fiscally irresponsible and lack basic math.
 

Aix.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
1,831
246960_stadia-logo-100791411-large.jpg



But seriously I think Stadia is something that still has everything to prove before being considered legit. A variety of genres should be demonstrated at the very least, and I'd be very interested to see multiple Stadia users playing a multiplayer game together.

While most of us here will likely have little use for such a service, what they are claiming seems to go against everything we've learned about gaming (especially with regard to input/latency) so I feel compelled to call BS.
 

Attachments

Sulphademus

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
385
If they're launching with this, then they might as well drive the whole shebang into the nearest lake.
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,293
When I first heard of this, I thought it would be more like a "netflix for games" kind of thing. Pay one price per month, similar to offerings for xbox, ea, ps4, even apple now.
But its not, and I expect since it is not a good value, google will shut it down in a couple years, like they do with a lot of their other products.
 

Kardonxt

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
3,118
Not being able to use your existing game library kills it for me. Then again I already own a gaming pc and moonlight works just fine to stream to my laptop while away. I'm probably not the target audience.
 

Lakados

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,025
A Platform like Stadia has some huge advantages for specific kinds of games, I would love to see how it works for MMO's. RPG's, and Sims. Input lag, and FPS, and Graphics are much less of an issue here and the possibilities with Maps, Density, and AI are far more exciting here than anything the average PC could do at this point. IF Deverlopers can play to the platforms strengths correctly I could see it being pretty awesome for a number of things, but 240fps twitch gaming isn't going to be one of them.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,255
Online gaming code has zero in common with streaming a game. I don't even know how you think that is a valid comparison ?! When you play an online multiplayer game your own inputs are all processed locally and instantly processed while also sent to the servers for other players.
Your own character moves with zero latency. And you don't directly wait for other players inputs, what you see in a multiplayer game is a prediction on where the other players might be based on their latest available inputs, which is constantly being corrected as their inputs become available, that's how they mask latency in mp games. But this method does not work for your own controlled character because you'd instantly notice that your inputs and the results are not exactly the same due to prediction errors.


Every game will have the exact same amount of input lag, you can't cheat physics. Yes they have been playing MMOs and shooters and it is completely irrelevant to streaming.


As I've explained you wouldn'T be comfortable with 150ms lag for your own controlled character, I'd not even be comfortable with 10ms.


Again, you cannot cheat physics no matter how much you optimize. If your inputs are made at location A, and they are processed at a server which is at location B, there is no way to "optimize" out the input lag. The information needs to travel that distance trough a bunch of network infrastructure and that takes time.

Of course there are a few types of games where input lag does not matter that much, like turn based games, and strategy games, but shooters and action games will be a pita to play over streaming.

But the real deal breaker for me in streaming is IQ. Yes 1080p 60fps is fine, until you account for all the compression artifacts. You'll basically play a game with the image quality of a twitch stream.
I remember Counter-Strike had a console switch to turn lag compensation off. Boy, was that an eye opener. I became a much better player after a couple weeks playing the game that way. And that was on a 56k modem averaging 110ms latency.
Look at PSNow which is arguably the most successful cloud gaming service. It's been out since 2014 and has 700,000 active users, plus they have like 40% of the cloud gaming market. They have an entire catalog of PS3 games, and are now getting into PS2 and PS4 games. If PSNow was a game console, it has sold less than an Atari 5200. It has sold less than a Nokia Ngage, which was around 3 million. Since it uses mostly older games, it has less active users than the NES & SNES Classic has in sales, individually. It bleeds millions of customers and has only retained 700k.

So what does Stadia have to offer that PSNow, Geforce Now, and Shadow haven't been able to achieve? PC games that can run on a $100 graphics cards, with latency and image compression?
PSNow is a value-add for PlayStation owners, originally. I wonder how many of their users now that it's open to everyone do not own a PS4 or any other Sony console? Stadia is a standalone service that you have to buy into, so its value is itself. It's another different situation that you can't compare to directly.
 

BoiseTech

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
359
I canceled my pre-order today. I'm not going to pay monthly AND buy games at $60 a pop to stream them. I can already stream from my gigabit connection at home to anywhere I want, if I wanted to. Plus I don't have to buy the games twice.
 

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,336
I canceled my pre-order today. I'm not going to pay monthly AND buy games at $60 a pop to stream them. I can already stream from my gigabit connection at home to anywhere I want, if I wanted to. Plus I don't have to buy the games twice.
Wait, you have to pay to steam, and pay to buy??? wow, its just so bad it might not actually catch on, I LOVE IT (death to streaming games as service!).
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2018
Messages
691
You linked to a guy that seems to have an axe to grind, and all he can come up with is that the Controller will initially support wireless connectivity over WiFi only with Chromecast Ultra -- the very device it'll be bundled with in the Founders Edition.

So what specific "coming without many of its promised features" are you referring to?
im enjoying how royally ignored this shill was XD
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,255
Wait, you have to pay to steam, and pay to buy??? wow, its just so bad it might not actually catch on, I LOVE IT (death to streaming games as service!).
1080 streaming is free, apparently, but you still have to buy the games. Which is hilarious because the majority of PCs out there should have no problem playing games at 1080/60, so why wouldn't you just buy a license outright from Steam, GOG, Epic (not you), or any other digital storefront out there?
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,153
I want to try it, just because I'm interested in new technology. I think the concept is sound, maybe internet speeds are not all there everywhere, but I have a good connection.

Paying $10/month is fine, but then also paying $60/game seems a bit much. I thought it was going to be more like a Netflix kind of thing.

Also, now Google will be seeing (and potentially recording) all the pervy things I'm doing to NPCs. Not sure how I feel about that...
 

GoldenTiger

Fully [H]
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
19,212
And you know they're not going to give you your money back when that happens, too. At least Microsoft (IIRC) refunded people who'd bought ebooks when they shut down their store.
Yep, that was Microsoft. Google though, no chance.
 

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,536
If Stadia is anything like GeforceNow (and I think that's pretty much the case), here are my thoughts.

IQ seems better than consoles, but not really up to PC quality.
There are games that are well suited for streaming. Slow paced games like say the Arkham series or the lego series play really well at 1080p on a 30mb/s connection.
Trying to do combos on Fighting games like MK or SF series is an exercise of frustration.
I do like racing games on it, I don't feel lag as much as in fighting games.
Platform games like CrashBandicoot feel somewhat off on timing, but I got used to it.
No competitive multiplayer gaming, really, I've seen my kid curse at the screen when trying Fortnite. Forget it.
Haven't tried RT games yet, but haven't tried those on my desktop PC either.

That said, I notice that every now and then, there can be some hiccups, lag, and pixelation and depending on the games, it can be detrimental on gameplay.

On a sidenote, AFAIK Stadia runs on a Vega64 equivalent (radeon instinct?) so don't expect 4K gaming at ultra quality.

So in the end I think streaming its good for casual gaming, but Stadia in particular seems kind of expensive. At least in GeforceNow you can play your steam library.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,279
1080 streaming is free, apparently, but you still have to buy the games. Which is hilarious because the majority of PCs out there should have no problem playing games at 1080/60, so why wouldn't you just buy a license outright from Steam, GOG, Epic (not you), or any other digital storefront out there?
That’s actually a really good point, the sales on those platforms will be infinitely better than on Stadia as well.

I mean maybe if a family only has some POS Dell with no video card or some iGPU laptop but it’s going to be VERY difficult to compete against Sony/MS with their console offerings being 150 bucks or whatever during Black Friday among other discounts.

If it was 10 dollars a month for access to the entire library at 4K/60 I’d at least try it for a month. There is just no way I’m doing it as it is.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,588
That assumes it gets to the point where it is "good enough" like video streaming has. The problem of latency isn't just a "hardcore" gamer issue here, its going to be an issue for the mainstream audience as well.
A well authored Bluray still craps all over streaming technologies, it's all about convenience now. As a collective we generally go with whatever is easiest these days.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
29,331
Not sure what your point is, the back-end hardware is the same whether you're choosing 1080p60 for free or paying $10/mo for 4K60.

Would a 9900k + 2080Ti outputing to a 1080p screen no longer be a high-end gaming PC because its outputting at 1080?
So, legit question - by your logic, if I play NES ROMs on a 9900K + 2080Ti, would that be considered "high-end PC gaming"?


In all seriousness, I did do the Stadia beta and it was "surprisingly playable" - at least, in terms of latency. The trade-off was that, for me, the majority of the time it looked like hot compressed and pixellated garbage. Nowhere even near on par with console graphics. And I have a 150 Mbps connection, that really shouldn't have been happening.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
Wait, you have to pay to steam, and pay to buy??? wow, its just so bad it might not actually catch on, I LOVE IT (death to streaming games as service!).
That's my point #4. Nobody wants to give up the $60 price of a game in favor of $10 per month.

A well authored Bluray still craps all over streaming technologies, it's all about convenience now. As a collective we generally go with whatever is easiest these days.
That's not the same thing. In my life time I went from VHS, to DVD, to Bluray and I don't mind sticking around DVD quality if it meant convenience. Also, a Netflix account is like $10 per month vs what was $60 per movie on a Bluray back in 2006. Plus the Bluray players at that time were like $1k with the PS3 being the cheapest Bluray player. Sure Bluray is cheaper today but not $10 per month cheap.

Where as I've never played a game with a delay. Not on Nes, Genesis, Xbox, PC, and etc. I also can't get Stadia games off Humble Bundle, Amazon, Steam, and etc. I'm going to pay whatever they're asking on Stadia. Maybe if they offered a Steam key like Geforce Now does, I can see some value. It also won't be convenient when I'm playing a game and my internet goes down because someone hit a pole and broke the internet for my area.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,588
That's not the same thing. In my life time I went from VHS, to DVD, to Bluray and I don't mind sticking around DVD quality if it meant convenience. Also, a Netflix account is like $10 per month vs what was $60 per movie on a Bluray back in 2006. Plus the Bluray players at that time were like $1k with the PS3 being the cheapest Bluray player. Sure Bluray is cheaper today but not $10 per month cheap.
You just highlighted my point perfectly. Obviously you're not interested in quality, so the lesser quality of a streaming service over physical media suits you perfectly as you prefer convenience - The same goes for gaming.

About the only point that's marginally correct is the one about pricing, even then we're talking about current pricing and not Bluray on release. By the time Mum and Dad realize little Johnny's gaming interest is costing a small fortune in PC upgrades Stadia may be something worth considering for $10.00 a month, these are the people Google are hoping to capture.

An Xbox Live subscription costs $10.00/month.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
You just highlighted my point perfectly. Obviously you're not interested in quality, so the lesser quality of a streaming service over physical media suits you perfectly as you prefer convenience - The same goes for gaming.

About the only point that's marginally correct is the one about pricing, even then we're talking about current pricing and not Bluray on release. By the time Mum and Dad realize little Johnny's gaming interest is costing a small fortune in PC upgrades Stadia may be something worth considering for $10.00 a month, these are the people Google are hoping to capture.

An Xbox Live subscription costs $10.00/month.
Who is paying full price for Gold these days? Buying 6 to 12 months is much cheaper than $10 per month and there always tons of deals for it. Not to mention things like Ultimate where you get Gold and Game Pass for $5 more per month. Also you get a lot free games with Gold, including some you can actually keep it the subscription lapses. Studia so far has a single game includes with their premium tier and fuck all for information on when/if more will be added and how long Destiny 2 will be available, Stadia’s premium service is like a shit version of GamePass.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,588
Who is paying full price for Gold these days? Buying 6 to 12 months is much cheaper than $10 per month and there always tons of deals for it. Not to mention things like Ultimate where you get Gold and Game Pass for $5 more per month. Also you get a lot free games with Gold, including some you can actually keep it the subscription lapses. Studia so far has a single game includes with their premium tier and fuck all for information on when/if more will be added and how long Destiny 2 will be available, Stadia’s premium service is like a shit version of GamePass.
Well, when you've got a kid that only plays the X-Box about four times a year, a 12/24 month subscription just isn't worth it. Another example of the market Google are hoping to attract.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,439
Who is paying full price for Gold these days? Buying 6 to 12 months is much cheaper than $10 per month and there always tons of deals for it. .
There is no point in paying for any subscription when you only turn on the damn thing occasionally. My PS4 Pro was off for over 6 months continuously this year. I wouldn't even pay for a PC subscription of any sort, because I often go 2-3 weeks without playing any game.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
Well, when you've got a kid that only plays the X-Box about four times a year, a 12/24 month subscription just isn't worth it. Another example of the market Google are hoping to attract.
For this hypothetical kid to switch over you'd also need to convince their friends to switch and make sure the service actually has the game(s) they play avaliable and somehow convince them or their parents to buy the same game(s) a second time for full price. People that are already proclaiming Stadia a success rather conveniently forget to talk about those things.
 

Mazzspeed

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,588
For this hypothetical kid to switch over you'd also need to convince their friends to switch and make sure the service actually has the game(s) they play avaliable and somehow convince them or their parents to buy the same game(s) a second time for full price. People that are already proclaiming Stadia a success rather conveniently forget to talk about those things.
Do we know how this streaming service works yet? Is it streaming PC titles, console titles or is this some Google only thing? I assumed PC titles would be streaming and the service used would be invisible to the title being played?
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
11,627
Who is paying full price for Gold these days? Buying 6 to 12 months is much cheaper than $10 per month and there always tons of deals for it. Not to mention things like Ultimate where you get Gold and Game Pass for $5 more per month. Also you get a lot free games with Gold, including some you can actually keep it the subscription lapses. Studia so far has a single game includes with their premium tier and fuck all for information on when/if more will be added and how long Destiny 2 will be available, Stadia’s premium service is like a shit version of GamePass.
I have to say, I completely agree. Mind you, the best deal I found on Gold recently was $54 a year. However, I bought 2 years, bought the $2 XBox Ultimate Game Pass deal and now I have XBox Ultimate Gamepass up until April of 2022. :) I use my XBox every single day, I do not pay for pay for tv service of any kind, which I think is much more a waste of money that an XBox subscription and receive all the perks that go with it.

So, I know have a Game subscription until 2022 that I got for $2 and runs on my Windows 10 machines and XBox.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
4,687
You just highlighted my point perfectly. Obviously you're not interested in quality, so the lesser quality of a streaming service over physical media suits you perfectly as you prefer convenience - The same goes for gaming.
I don't mind a image quality drop if it means I save a bunch of money, but latency effects gameplay directly. A lack of control over a game is a lack of quality of life. This is more akin to the Xbox Kinect which didn't work so well as an input device. We all know how well the Kinect worked out. Microsoft didn't realize the Kinect sucked until the Xbox One was released and they forced it onto people, including the additional $100 cost.

About the only point that's marginally correct is the one about pricing, even then we're talking about current pricing and not Bluray on release. By the time Mum and Dad realize little Johnny's gaming interest is costing a small fortune in PC upgrades Stadia may be something worth considering for $10.00 a month, these are the people Google are hoping to capture.
If you're building your child a $2k or even $1k gaming PC, then you failed a a parent at some point. You buy them a laptop that can barely play games, because it's for school and their own personal enjoyment. Stadia may seem cheap, until you realize that it still needs hardware to even work. Sure everyone has a phone, tablet, or laptop, but then we're at the same situation where the Blizzard guy goes, "Don't you all have phones". You still need something, even though that something doesn't have to be the top of the line gaming machine. But, why pay $120 per year on Stadia when you could just spend $200-$300 more on that laptop so it could game? After the first year and a half the laptop is paying for itself, plus little Johnny can do his homework and print documents. Plus I don't have to pay $60 per game, and PC gaming offers a plethora of discounted games. If I really want to be cheap, I sign up to the Humble Bundle monthly and I get to keep the games if I cancel the service, unlike Xbox Pass.

That's why I said most people are terrible with math, because they don't realize that Stadia is an awful deal. Besides the data cap issues, besides the limited bandwidth you have to share with your family assuming they also use Stadia or Netflix. Also when Stadia launches you must pay $129.99 up front and $9.99 a month after the first 3 months. The only game you get from all this is Destiny 2. I can buy a used RX 470 off Ebay for $100 and just play a bunch of games for free on PC like League of Legends, CS:GO, Team Fortress 2, HearthStone, and etc. That should keep little Johnny busy.
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
18,793
Do we know how this streaming service works yet? Is it streaming PC titles, console titles or is this some Google only thing? I assumed PC titles would be streaming and the service used would be invisible to the title being played?
PC games running on systems powered by an unnamed 2.7Ghz CPU and a Vega GPU (Vega 56 based on the specs Google showed off).

So...This brings up an interesting question that I haven't thought of. Can a system with a 2.7Ghz CPU (with an unnamed amount of hyperthreaded cores) and a V56 even run games like Destiny 2 at 4K/60?
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
540
PC games running on systems powered by an unnamed 2.7Ghz CPU and a Vega GPU (Vega 56 based on the specs Google showed off).

So...This brings up an interesting question that I haven't thought of. Can a system with a 2.7Ghz CPU (with an unnamed amount of hyperthreaded cores) and a V56 even run games like Destiny 2 at 4K/60?
easily...
all you have to do is lower settings from ultra to high or medium (still better than consoles)
 
Top