This is realtime? That is amazing. wow.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Quote:
Very nice! I saw your post of this over at XS and was going to post it a minute ago, until I saw this in the software news.
This is very impressive!
Will check out the interview now
![]()
EDIT: Just finished.
This is very interesting stuff. I especially liked how questions from XS/OCN were specifically touched upon. Thank you Simon.
About the bandwidth/latency though:
Jules talked about how the rendered data can scale to your connection speed.
So if I wanted a 2560X1600 resolution rendered, but my connection wouldn't support it fast enough, does that mean it would scale down the picture to a lower resolution, or lower the quality? This would in turn mean that high end gamers would have to upgrade their connection for full resolution/quality. Are there any other things that can be done as far as speed goes to help support high end resolutions over lower end connections?
Originally Posted by 64NOMIS  I just had a unique opportunity to interview Jules Urbach with your questions on cloud-based rendering and blogger Paul Mooney was onhand with his HD camcorder here at SXSW in Austin. I asked the hardest questions I could devise based on Slappa's post from the original thread. I hope you enjoy it, I certainly did! The live interview from Paul Mooney on Neuronspark just posted: http://links.amd.com/Urbach The Blog on Cloud Computing and the Render Cloud: http://links.amd.com/9prl Cool Otoy Demo Video: YouTube - Best graphics in the world: OTOY Jules Urbach is the expert on the cloud-based rendering and the CEO of Otoy. I took the questions raised on XS and Slappa's post here on Overclock.net. |
This is very impressive!
Will check out the interview now
EDIT: Just finished.
This is very interesting stuff. I especially liked how questions from XS/OCN were specifically touched upon. Thank you Simon.
About the bandwidth/latency though:
Jules talked about how the rendered data can scale to your connection speed.
So if I wanted a 2560X1600 resolution rendered, but my connection wouldn't support it fast enough, does that mean it would scale down the picture to a lower resolution, or lower the quality? This would in turn mean that high end gamers would have to upgrade their connection for full resolution/quality. Are there any other things that can be done as far as speed goes to help support high end resolutions over lower end connections?
2
Quote:
and assuming the allotted bandwidth is adequate. You shouldn't need too much though, as i've never seen a network render choke on 100 Mbit LAN...
Originally Posted by Adrienspawn That wouldn't be real-time unless they were like 1000 PCs in the cloud....right? |
Quote:
Slappa,
OK, this comment is focused on gaming. The low hanging fruit for gaming is high bandwidth, low horsepower platforms. Small wifi enabled devices like laptops and mids with small screens. The current client-server model for PC gaming may well remain; as many have pointed out, these get cheaper and faster making it seem odd to try to offload all the compute. But small devices still have a real problem - power consumption - and it puts a big gap between small device compute and the potential compute of the cloud. Imagine playing high end games on ultra-thin laptops. Its what STEAM did for app delivery, now extended to gameplay, for underserved clients.
Originally Posted by Slappa So if I wanted a 2560X1600 resolution rendered, but my connection wouldn't support it fast enough, does that mean it would scale down the picture to a lower resolution, or lower the quality? This would in turn mean that high end gamers would have to upgrade their connection for full resolution/quality. Are there any other things that can be done as far as speed goes to help support high end resolutions over lower end connections? |
OK, this comment is focused on gaming. The low hanging fruit for gaming is high bandwidth, low horsepower platforms. Small wifi enabled devices like laptops and mids with small screens. The current client-server model for PC gaming may well remain; as many have pointed out, these get cheaper and faster making it seem odd to try to offload all the compute. But small devices still have a real problem - power consumption - and it puts a big gap between small device compute and the potential compute of the cloud. Imagine playing high end games on ultra-thin laptops. Its what STEAM did for app delivery, now extended to gameplay, for underserved clients.
Quote:
I see what you are saying.
So like eventually being able to play a game on like a netbook or something alike. Yes, that would eat a lot of power on these devices. I'm guessing batteries will increase in endurance and capacity by this time though.
I guess we'll see.
![]()
Originally Posted by 64NOMIS Slappa, OK, this comment is focused on gaming. The low hanging fruit for gaming is high bandwidth, low horsepower platforms. Small wifi enabled devices like laptops and mids with small screens. The current client-server model for PC gaming may well remain; as many have pointed out, these get cheaper and faster making it seem odd to try to offload all the compute. But small devices still have a real problem - power consumption - and it puts a big gap between small device compute and the potential compute of the cloud. Imagine playing high end games on ultra-thin laptops. Its what STEAM did for app delivery, now extended to gameplay, for underserved clients. |
So like eventually being able to play a game on like a netbook or something alike. Yes, that would eat a lot of power on these devices. I'm guessing batteries will increase in endurance and capacity by this time though.
I guess we'll see.
2
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
