|
BreakAtmo posted:No no, like I said above, an actual handheld x86-64 device with SteamOS (and Windows if you wanted) that would play any game natively. Though some explained how it wouldn't be entirely feasible. I'm probably overestimating the power of mobile hardware these days. Though, if a slim phone can play various games at 1080p, I would think a somewhat chunky handheld could play various PC games at 720p (I consider anything more than 720p to be battery-draining overkill with little visual benefit when the screen is only 5"). cat doter posted:Alrighty. Some of the details I mentioned may be wrong since I was posting from memory, so I guess that's why logs are useful!
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
720p60 seems to work pretty well, an average of 54fps during the metal gear ray fight ain't half bad. If there's no hardware encoding going on it might explain why the streaming performance sucks with MGR, apparently it hits CPUs really hard when you start cutting things into pieces. If encoding was being done on my video card it'd have no problem at all. cat doter fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:The 1080p games on phones are technically simplistic. What games do you want streamed to this machine? It's functionally going to have to be a laptop with a fancy form factor. Mostly console ports made to be played with a controller - Dark Souls, TES/Fallout, Tomb Raider, basically anything you wanted that did not require a KB/M setup. I imagine you'd need to turn the settings down for them to run well at 720p on this hypothetical handheld, but they'd probably still trump any other mobile gaming offerings. And we'll always have DMC4 PC, which frankly could run on a toaster. I should be noted that it would likely be more powerful than the phones though - they're super-slim, while the existence of triggers on this handheld would necessitate some bulk, and thus room for more powerful hardware. So while the games would be more complex than phone games played at 1080p on something like a Galaxy Note 3, they would be played in 720p on more powerful hardware.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:Mostly console ports made to be played with a controller - Dark Souls, TES/Fallout, Tomb Raider, basically anything you wanted that did not require a KB/M setup. I imagine you'd need to turn the settings down for them to run well at 720p on this hypothetical handheld, but they'd probably still trump any other mobile gaming offerings. And we'll always have DMC4 PC, which frankly could run on a toaster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Your hypothetical hardware is called a laptop, you're not getting anywhere near the complexity of the games you're talking about on a phone anytime soon. It really wouldn't be possible to have a Vita-esque x86 machine yet? drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:It really wouldn't be possible to have a Vita-esque x86 machine yet? drat. x86 runs pretty hot and the die sizes are kinda large from what I know. Even higher end laptops struggle with the games you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Nevermind you're only talking about the CPU, let alone the GPU and all interconnecting components.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Nevermind you're only talking about the CPU, let alone the GPU and all interconnecting components. If the combination GPU/CPU ever takes off you might, coupled with some aggressive cooling, but it's currently made of unobtainium and unicorn farts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
And you'll have to charge it every 30 minutes
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:It really wouldn't be possible to have a Vita-esque x86 machine yet? drat. Well there is the Motorola RAZR i which has an x86 Atom processor, just add a gamepad and you're good to go  . But really, top-end Android smartphones already have the maximum amount of CPU/GPU horsepower you can cram into a smartphone/Vita formfactor. Mobile devices have a strict power and heat budgets and you're not getting even MacBook Air-equivalent gaming performance (which requires ~15 watts with Intel's most power-efficient laptop chips) in an under 6 inch form factor (which only allow under 1 watt for CPU+GPU).
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:It really wouldn't be possible to have a Vita-esque x86 machine yet? drat. Well the Intel nucs look interesting with Intel HD 5000 GPU - it'll happen and fairly soon, within a year or two!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
How does the streaming handle resolutions? For example, my desktop has a 16x9 primary display but I'm thinking about buying a laptop (16x10). Also... how do keyboard/mouse games work with the streaming? (like Civilization 5, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
cat doter posted:720p60 seems to work pretty well, an average of 54fps during the metal gear ray fight ain't half bad. Your logs all said DXVA which is a hardware GPU encoder. Here's some more questions: You say you're using a wired network. Is it 100BaseT or gigabit? I wonder if AMD driver issues are contributing to the problem, has anyone seen nVidia results?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
RVWinkle posted:Your logs all said DXVA which is a hardware GPU encoder. It's a fairly old and not that decent router, and I'm not entirely sure, but the on display info during the stream said I had 200mbit of bandiwdth, so I'd assume that's either 100 both ways or 100 from the switch and 100 from the router. I'm in no way an expert on IT stuff however, just an experienced end user. If DXVA is a hardware encoder, then I'm confused by the performance. The R9 290 is a pretty powerful GPU. Perhaps there's some driver compatibility needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
DXVA is for video acceleration. You use it to decode your video on the GPU rather than CPU. My results were to and from Nvidia GPUs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Is anyone else getting really bad audio from streaming games? It's happened on every game I've tried and while the video and controls seem fine the sound crackles all the time. I don't know how else to describe it. Streaming over a wired connection from an i3-2120, 8GB ram, 6870 to a Turion-based laptop connected by VGA to a Samsung TV.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
cat doter posted:i5 3570k 3.8GHz Unrelated, but why do you have $800 worth of performance parts and no SSD? Or are your games on a secondary drive? I'm in the beta and did some proof of concept stuff tonight, real excited. But my gaming computer is in storage, which is a real bummer. Considering the results I got streaming to a 6-year-old macbook via wifi, I think a NUC with HD 4400 graphics is now the perfect steambox.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Technetium posted:Is anyone else getting really bad audio from streaming games? It's happened on every game I've tried and while the video and controls seem fine the sound crackles all the time. I don't know how else to describe it. Streaming over a wired connection from an i3-2120, 8GB ram, 6870 to a Turion-based laptop connected by VGA to a Samsung TV. How is the audio being output? VGA doesn't have audio. Does your laptop just have lovely speakers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Technetium posted:Is anyone else getting really bad audio from streaming games? It's happened on every game I've tried and while the video and controls seem fine the sound crackles all the time. I don't know how else to describe it. Streaming over a wired connection from an i3-2120, 8GB ram, 6870 to a Turion-based laptop connected by VGA to a Samsung TV. You're most likely dropping frames and getting pops that way. Check the log as you're running the game, it'll tell you what percentage of frames are being lost. Blackula69 posted:Unrelated, but why do you have $800 worth of performance parts and no SSD? Or are your games on a secondary drive? They're too small for how much they cost. If they were ~$150 for 500gb or something I'd get one. I don't upgrade that often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
cat doter posted:They're too small for how much they cost. If they were ~$150 for 500gb or something I'd get one. I don't upgrade that often. The point is to get an SSD for your OS and main programs + a large HDD for extra storage. Believe me, the speed of an SSD is a huge upgrade and very worth the money. A 240GB one would likely be fine. HDDs are utterly sluggish in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Just having my OS on a crappy 60 gb SSD ends up with me loading some games twice as fast as my friend who even has better PC components than me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:How is the audio being output? VGA doesn't have audio. Does your laptop just have lovely speakers? The speakers are lovely but it sounded the same through them or if I ran a 3.5mm cable to the TV or plugged in headphones. If I was hearing anything coming over the VGA connection I'd be weirded the gently caress out. cat doter posted:You're most likely dropping frames and getting pops that way. Check the log as you're running the game, it'll tell you what percentage of frames are being lost. Would that do it? I've seen it drop frames often around the 1-3% range but I could've sworn it happened even when it was at 0% packet and frame loss too. I'll have a look today probably. Does it save logs? Then I could look at what was going on. Also dude get an SSD, it makes a world of difference. I don't know why someone would get a 3570k and a goddamn R9 290 and not spend ~100$ for a 120GB SSD. Windows loads a million times faster and games load like nobody's business. And I have an i3, I can't imagine how much faster it'd be with an i5. Technetium fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 14:06
|
|
|
Steam\logs\streaming_log.txt for all the best statistics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:The point is to get an SSD for your OS and main programs + a large HDD for extra storage. Believe me, the speed of an SSD is a huge upgrade and very worth the money. A 240GB one would likely be fine. HDDs are utterly sluggish in comparison. Listen to this man. For games you don't need really need SSDs since most of the content is loaded into memory once (when levels load assets), or "stream loaded." No need for SSD here. But for the OS it's really something you want. Just get a 128 GB one and you'll never look back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Furism posted:Listen to this man. Listen to this man who is asking you to listen to that man. Seriously, an SSD should be a requirement for any PC build nowadays. I have SSDs in two old 2008-era AMD systems (Sandforce drives, they don't support TRIM) and even with those it was a huge performance boost. Don't think twice about it, make it your next upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:The point is to get an SSD for your OS and main programs + a large HDD for extra storage. Believe me, the speed of an SSD is a huge upgrade and very worth the money. A 240GB one would likely be fine. HDDs are utterly sluggish in comparison. Seconding this, SSD for your OS and Ninite type programs, and everything else (\STEAM\ folder, digital photos archives, documents etc) on the 2 TB rotational drive. In most cases it's faster to reinstall Win 8.1 from USB to SSD than it is to try and troubleshoot most computer viruses. SSD as your primary system drive is so fast you'll think computers without it have a serious defect once you get used to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Ok I found the logs but I barely have any idea what half this means so I'm going to clutter the hell out of this thread by posting my last Super Meat Boy stream where I played a few levels and got a lots of popping/crackly audio:code:Technetium fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Yeah, a lot of non-Apple laptops have crazy bad speakers/sound cards, especially before like 2010. I had a nice little IBM laptop that was great at everything except audio. Also yeah, an SSD is a must-buy. It tripled the speed of my ancient laptop, and it's the one thing than can make your computer noticeably faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
rs: SSD chat, the SSD market has really matured a lot over the last few years and even a lot of low-midrange offbrand SSDs have no downsides at all that you'll be able to detect in normal use without running a benchmark. Check the SSD thread in SHSC before just buying a random one since there are still some brands/models to avoid.cat doter posted:They're too small for how much they cost. If they were ~$150 for 500gb or something I'd get one. I don't upgrade that often. e: it looks like EnhanceIO might be an option in debian/steamos poverty goat fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Your hypothetical hardware is called a laptop, you're not getting anywhere near the complexity of the games you're talking about on a phone anytime soon. What? You're out of your mind. People are already using Raspberry Pi to stream games without any interaction with Steam at all. http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/5812 What matters is the source computer's capabilities, network speed and how fast the recipient can decode the stream and send data back up stream. This is also without GPU acceleration if I can remember correctly. If proper drivers were given you would see the Pi sales explode since it would be able to do Android.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
YouTuber posted:What? You're out of your mind. People are already using Raspberry Pi to stream games without any interaction with Steam at all. http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/5812
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
I know SSDs are awesome, but I don't care about boot speeds. I don't sit there waiting for my computer to boot, most of the time I just turn it on in the morning, go about my business and come back to it later. Performance wise in games, I'm fine with how mechanical drives run. If I want better performance out of a game I use ImDisk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
BreakAtmo posted:It really wouldn't be possible to have a Vita-esque x86 machine yet? drat. Take a look at the Gigabyte Brix, then realise they run too hot for you to hold comfortably in your hand, and that they would either need to have a third of their thickness added onto them for the screen and controls to fit, or have an AMOLED screen that would add an unreasonably high amount of money to their cost. Then realise they don't have a battery, which would add even more bulk. Edit: Also, realise that there's no way for this form factor to "catch up" to desktop computers, for the same reason that laptops never will. Great Joe fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
cat doter posted:I know SSDs are awesome, but I don't care about boot speeds. I don't sit there waiting for my computer to boot, most of the time I just turn it on in the morning, go about my business and come back to it later. It's not just boot time. It's everything. OSes tend to write and load a lot of poo poo, a lot more than games, and a SSD gives you a speed boost all across the board. But whatever floats your boat. If you're happy like this, just know you still have this appreciable upgrade to look after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I recently got a SSD and am very happy. Besides the fact that my desktop now boots up hilariously fast, big programs that used to take ages to start up now takes seconds. I have no idea why I didn't get one long ago
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Gutcruncher posted:I recently got a SSD and am very happy. Besides the fact that my desktop now boots up hilariously fast, big programs that used to take ages to start up now takes seconds. I have no idea why I didn't get one long ago Honestly it's because decently sized only became affordable in the last 2 years or so. e: 2 years ago a 240GB Vertex 3 would have run you $550. The SSD market is weird. Also if you're going to get an SSD, get a 250GB drive if you have the money. 120GB ones are totally fine, but 250GB perform a little bit better, will last a little bit longer, and your OS won't take up like a 1/5 of the drive. Hace fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Yeah it's not only boot times which were insane when I had a fresh install of Win8, I think 3 seconds before I could launch Chrome? Compared to waiting 30-90 seconds for my loving netbook to wake up it's crazy. Same thing with programs, everything just opens right away, like under a second no matter what. And the difference it makes in load times in a game like Natural Selection 2 is INSANE. That game is so bad at loading/precaching stuff that it cut down from a 2+ minute loadtime on the HDD to 30 seconds or less when I moved it to the SSD. SSDs are great and if you're dropping cash on an R9 290 I don't get how you're not dropping cash on an SSD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
I used to think SSDs were dumb. Now I know better.cat doter posted:I know SSDs are awesome, but I don't care about boot speeds. I don't sit there waiting for my computer to boot, most of the time I just turn it on in the morning, go about my business and come back to it later. There's an unofficial attribute coined sometime in the mid-90s called "The Snappy", SSDs give you that Like, when you load Chrome or Steam or Photoshop, typically you double click on a program and for shorter pauses you might take this time to glance at the time, longer pauses you might check your text messages or email on your phone, glance outside to determine the weather, etc, glance back and you're ready to compute Those pauses go away with an SSD. Pretty much all of them. Forever. There's a lot of them, and they get annoying when you have to use a rotational drive again. Nobody really boots their machine from a cold start on a regular basis anymore, at least I certainly don't, and after two weeks the improvements to my "quality of life" were very obvious. Also a "C: drive sized" 128mb drive is only $50-70 these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
YourAverageJoe posted:Take a look at the Gigabyte Brix, then realise they run too hot for you to hold comfortably in your hand, and that they would either need to have a third of their thickness added onto them for the screen and controls to fit, or have an AMOLED screen that would add an unreasonably high amount of money to their cost. Then realise they don't have a battery, which would add even more bulk. I was assuming a 720p OLED screen anyway. But yeah, now I get that x86 wouldn't work so well. I was hoping that the miniaturisation of mobile hardware could allow for an x86 handheld capable of playing console ports at 720p on low settings with a decent framerate (I mean, the Vita was released 2 years ago with 2 quad-core chips), but it sounds like it wouldn't really be doable - am I right in assuming that doing this with x86 would not be the same as with phones? Someone mentioned x86 die sizes being large and running too hot. That said, I wasn't imagining it would 'catch up to desktop PCs', just offer a way of playing any PC game on a handheld as long as it ran well. Hadlock posted:I used to think SSDs were dumb. Now I know better. This. In the immortal words of Doktor from Revengeance: "Ha! Spinning media. Amazing we ever put up with such nonsense."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Hadlock posted:Like, when you load Chrome or Steam or Photoshop, typically you double click on a program and for shorter pauses you might take this time to glance at the time, longer pauses you might check your text messages or email on your phone, glance outside to determine the weather, etc, glance back and you're ready to compute
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2014 12:40
|
|
