3 ms·
Twilight of the GPU?
- buugs 17y agoThere must be an awful lot of compression taking place and then their is still the market left for the low connections higher standards for operating systems and programs such as photoshop. This would have to outperform faster and better than a normal console for people to subscribe.
- jdoliner 17y agoI think everyone's vaporware senses are tingling a bit. But let's think for a second, why can't this work. Really the only issue I can see is keeping the video interface smooth enough to allow for gameplay. The problem is that they need to do compression on the fly, they don't know what happens in the future of the video, and they've got to have already sent the past. So they can only compress a small number of frames together. Which seems a bit difficult but not necessarily impossible to me. Who here knows about video compression and can tell us more?
- wmf 17y agoLookahead (B-frames) is optional in most codecs already. OnLive can be viewed as a form of one-way videoconferencing, which is a solved problem. It's merely expensive.
- saucetenuto 17y agoThe author claims that OnLive has to deliver latencies of no more than 150 milliseconds. I'd put it at 50, 20 frames per second, and I cannot for the life of me figure out how you'd hit that, even with something like Akamai's IP Accelerator thingie. Maybe OnLive's vaunted psychophysical research can relax that figure a bit, but I can't imagine what you could do to make a player content with even 12 frames per second, let alone /7/.
- wmf 17y agoLatency and FPS are orthogonal.