Quoting: Purple Library GuyWhat I keep wondering is, OK, we got these streaming game services. A couple already, plus Amazon now. Soooo . . . what's their market share like?
There's plenty of hype, and some people clearly are playing them. But are they catching on? Are they eating anyone's lunch? Or are they currently a relatively fringe thing, for all the talk? Is it a bandwagon Valve better jump on, or just mostly a money sink? Note that I'm willing to buy either possibility, I'm just complaining I don't have the data to judge from.
It's the same thing I've been wondering about the Epic store, which I haven't heard as much about lately. Everyone was talking how Valve needed to do various things to meet this threat, and they mostly didn't, and it's still unclear whether they had any need to.

You got a point. Would be fun to see the sales figures of say Stadia or GeForceNow.

Obviously nobody is going to drop a 10 years old Steam library for Stadia or Luna. I won't for sure. But, it might be interesting for new gamers that will compare the price of a console or a PC to the price of Stadia or Luna. These streaming services are going to gain traction over time. I'm just afraid that if Steam doesn't jump on the train, it might cost them in the long term. This is something that they have to get ready for, soon enough. Remember Microsoft's stance regarding the first iPhones?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

How long until Valve throw their Steam Controller onto the sofa and announce their own?

We always have the choice, but Valve is in a position where it could crush everyone of them, if they don't wait too long. I'm affraid that's what might play against Valve... Valve time.

The train is leaving the station, they should jump onboard before it's too late. New market... Better early than late.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Is the hardware acceleration in Chromium solved? Read lots of stuff about that? Is it that much of a deal?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dubigrasuWhat you're describing sounds more like 720p or/with H264. Stadia drops to that if it considers the connection not good enough (even if you started with 1080p or higher). Doesn't change the codec mid-run though, only the resolution.

I have a 27" and image quality is great with 1080p and VP9. I can sometimes briefly see artifacts on darker images, but that's about it.
Consider using StadiaEnhanced instead of Stadia+, to monitor or set the quality. It does pretty much the same things, but it remembers the settings between runs and can force higher resolutions.

As for the topic at hand, there's one thing that Stadia does "wrong" here, they may have their reasons...I dunno, but this free week is still behind the Pro subscription, so not much of a free- week. If they use free-week as a bait to catch future customers, well, they need to go fishing in a bigger pond, as in in make it actually free for all.

I added here an example of 720p+H264 vs 1440p+VP9 (use the slider):
https://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/juxtapose/latest/embed/index.html?uid=0439cee4-fe06-11ea-bf88-a15b6c7adf9a [External Link]
Also one thing to mention, the difference is much more dramatic in motion, that is actual gameplay.

StadiaEnhanced... ***Taking note***

Thanks!

Edit: I will test in more depth, later today... I know that it's a special case, but Destiny 2 was pretty ugly. It seems a lot better now.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Related to Stadia, but much less about the current news...

Just understood the complaints about the image quality of Stadia... On a phone (5"-6"), tablet (10") or chromebook (11"), the offered 1080p looks great... On an HDTV (50"), it's already beginning to be much less convincing, but still tolerable. But on a 1080p 24" computer monitor it's just plain ugly. It' way too much blury and pixelated.

Didn't do any test on 4K devices, because I have none yet, but that's my observation based on my experience.

Next... 17" 1080p Laptop screen. :smile:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: The_AquabatIf you make such a bold claim like twice performance, you have to prove it.

I knew from the start that 2x improvement claim was just marketing. It simply sounded unrealistic.

Quoting: The_AquabatSo I expect Big Navi to score some wins at least on compute tasks, and maybe some games optimized for AMD, and it is definitely not even close to "dead on arrival"

Regarding AMD, they gave projected improvements in their RDNA 2 slides and I don't expect it to be far off:

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

That's for performance per watt. What's not known yet, is how powerful their highest end card will be using that improvement and whatever amount of compute units they'll put in it. It could be quite a leap from 5700XT.

Question:
The RX 5600 xt supports Radeon Rays (AMD raytracing)... What's the state of it, on Linux?

No it don't, not on a hardware level.

Aaaaah! Radeon Rays Audio... What the...?!:grin:

Ok! Sorry then.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: The_AquabatIf you make such a bold claim like twice performance, you have to prove it.

I knew from the start that 2x improvement claim was just marketing. It simply sounded unrealistic.

Quoting: The_AquabatSo I expect Big Navi to score some wins at least on compute tasks, and maybe some games optimized for AMD, and it is definitely not even close to "dead on arrival"

Regarding AMD, they gave projected improvements in their RDNA 2 slides and I don't expect it to be far off:

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load.

Source: cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net

View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

That's for performance per watt. What's not known yet, is how powerful their highest end card will be using that improvement and whatever amount of compute units they'll put in it. It could be quite a leap from 5700XT.

Question:
The RX 5600 xt supports Radeon Rays (AMD raytracing)... What's the state of it, on Linux?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: MohandevirIn fact, the gaming GPU market is driven by two selling points, atm: 4K 144hz monitors and RTX.

It doesn't look like it. Only small percentage uses 4K at such framerates and RTX (I assume you simply mean ray tracing) is also not a major feature that's used in practice. The bulk of the market is taken by mid range cards or cards aimed at 2560x1440 / 144 Hz segment.

Something like VR on the other hand could be a driver for most high end segment, but VR is also quite a small use case so far.

I.e. most high end cards are surely quite hyped and talked about, but they are not where most money is at least.

You are right. Didn't say the bulk of the market was there. I was referring to the hardware manufacturers that are pushing for 4k 144hz (monitors and hdtvs) and RTX (gpus) to sell their latest innovations (Marketing). Didn't say it was successful... Yet.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: NagezahnStill running on RX 470 (I didn't even remember and had to lspci for it :grin: ), usually enough for the kind of games I play. Every time there is some new GPU generation announced, I hope for a reasonably priced model that has some lower power consumption and significantly higher performance so I might consider an upgrade. But with every new generation I have the feeling that only monsters are created or budget cards for office scenarios.

I'm sure efficiency must have increased somewhat, my card is now four years old (says the internet). To be honest I don't have any numbers and don't invest much time on it. Usually I take a look what models lie in my desired power range (< 100 W) and then fire up some of those "GPU X vs. GPU Y" comparisons and am disappointed at the not impressive performance gain.

My guts say it's a different story with CPUs. Still running on a X4 860K. Just compared it to a Ryzen 5 3600 which has less TDP (65 vs. 95 W) and, from some benchmarks I found, has 2 to 5 times the performance.

Am I just missing some products here or is the GPU market really evolving so much differently?

In fact, the gaming GPU market is driven by two selling points, atm: 4K 144hz monitors and RTX. If you don't plan to jump in those bandwagons, you won't feel as compelled to upgrade your GPU.

Personnally, I have a 24in 1080p 75hz monitor and a 50in 1080p 60hz HDTV that I will keep for the foreseable futur. My GTX 960 4gb is still serviceable, if I accept the fact that I won't play at Ultra settings (Very High in the large majority of cases, medium in DE:MD). So... RTX 3080 has absolutely no appeal to me. Overpriced, overpowered. In fact, I'm I looking for the best RDNA2 GPU (to be ready for Gamescope/Wayland) that fits a 450w PSU. That's what I have in my Cougar QBX. :smile:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I've been playing Rage 2 on Stadia and it's a great experience (I miss my Steam Controllers trackpad/gyro, though). My son had a blast with Orcs Must Die 3, Super Hot and Embr. It's still lacking in terms of game offerings, but the holes are gradually shrinking. Personnally, I'm quite satisfied with the Stadia Pro subscription. It's in the price range of the PS Plus service or Humble bundle choice and there are few garbage games in the deal. Still waiting for the official Stadia app on Android TV and a good hockey game. :wink:

As for GFN, I aslo discovered that too many of my top tier games are no more available on the service... And since it's Windows in the cloud, I don't use it anymore. Instead, I sideloaded Stadia on my Nvidia Shield and use Steam Links for my PC games. :happy:

View this comment - View article - View full comments