3 ms·
"With good hardware and a fast home network, you’ll forget the game is running remotely." But with bad or moderate hardware you'll experience wonderful 5000 ms
by izzydata 12y ago
"With good hardware and a fast home network, you’ll forget the game is running remotely."
But with bad or moderate hardware you'll experience wonderful 5000 ms latency and have a horrible time.
It seems like you would need an HTPC anyway to load up steam and send the video from that 2nd computer to your TV. The whole process seems pointlessly convoluted.
I'd rather have wireless hdmi or even a really long hdmi cable from my good computer to wherever the tv is.
- RobotCaleb 12y agoI have wireless HDMI at work. It's not even close to low enough latency to play games on.
- izzydata 12y agoAh, I wasn't even aware that was a real thing. I guess there goes that idea.
- sliverstorm 12y agoThe upsides to a remote rendering rig are not obscene, but they are nice. Basically a top-end machine is big, ugly, noisy, and hot. So remote rendering lets you put it out of sight in a dark corner of a cool room in your house. In my case, the basement laundry. It also means the rendering rig can still have normal monitors to be used as a normal computer if you choose. Lastly, even my $400 laptop can now play Skyrim at max settings, so I can play on the porch if I like. As your other reply mentions, as far as competing remote rendering protocols, there aren't really any others good for games.