Originally Posted by Caples
But you're straight up wrong.
If they're running this on a handful of "high-end" machines, which most people consider to be an i5 and something like a 290 or a 780, then should not 32 consoles be able to spread out the computations among themselves to get at least similar results?
Neither of us have intricate knowledge of the subject so I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself by trying to blanket dump on this. I'm simply maintaining my optimism that this will turn out to be a good thing for console gamers.
Riiiiiiight...because I'm the only one that's saying this. Not like other far more knowledgeable people aren't saying the same thing.
Either way it goes I still fail to see how my point is incorrect at all.
A high-end PC couldn't handle it (the i5 and 290/780 as you say). So there for we're supposed to believe that on the opposite end of your internet connection that there will be PC's that are FAR more powerful than their i5/290/780 system for every user that needs it? Do you not see my point?
How do you explain how MS or anyone else for that matter is going to be able to provide 2-10x the computational power of an already, supposedly, high-end PC without it causing MS to go bankrupt? MS themselves have said that cloud computing with TRIPLE the power of the X1...that would be AT LEAST two ADDITIONAL X1's per user...that would be 10's of MILLIONS of X1 hardware comparable PC's on the server side.
As I've said, is "cloud computing" possible? Sure...but not on the level they showed in this little demonstration. At least not now or anywhere in the near future. The hardware isn't there, the internet speed and reliability isn't there, the financial backing isn't there.
Period. Call me a "fool" all you want but I don't see where I'm incorrect.