Tech Geforce Now has virtually eliminated the need to have a new PC

[Brampton_Boy]

My 14 year old nephew is really into gaming and was looking into a GPU upgrade (The PC I built him is decent, 12700k, 32GB of ram, but he is using an Arc 750). He games at 2560x1600 on a 144hz panel.

Given the ludicrous price of modern GPUs, I began doing some digging into modern cloud gaming services, and decided to get him the Geforce ultimate subscription.

After fiddling around with the settings (initially some input lag), the experience has been amazing. The cloud PC has the equivalent of a 16 core processor and an RTX 4080. In September it will be upgraded to the equivalent of an RTX 5080. He has access to most of his games on Xbox Live and Steam. There is do distinguishable difference between running the game on a local PC vs having it streamed.

For $20USD a month, it is an absolute steal. I was considering getting him a 9700xt, but with this service, there is no need. An added bonus is that he can stream to his phone and laptop and experience the same fidelity. Even though I don't game nearly as much as I used to, I decided to get the subscription myself (largely in anticipation of Borderlands 4).

If you have a fast internet connection, I would strongly encourage you to look into Geforce Now.

PS: The main drawback for me is that I actually enjoy building and overclocking PCs.... far more than I do actual gaming. While it would never replace a PC for me personally, if all you do is game, it is the perfect service.

 

[Bobby Boulders]

While the subject matter in the OP is cool and all, I mostly just appreciate that you're a good uncle to your nephew

 

[Madmick]

My 14 year old nephew is really into gaming and was looking into a GPU upgrade (The PC I built him is decent, 12700k, 32GB of ram, but he is using an Arc 750). He games at 2560x1600 on a 144hz panel.

Given the ludicrous price of modern GPUs, I began doing some digging into modern cloud gaming services, and decided to get him the Geforce ultimate subscription.

After fiddling around with the settings (initially some input lag), the experience has been amazing. The cloud PC has the equivalent of a 16 core processor and an RTX 4080. In September it will be upgraded to the equivalent of an RTX 5080. He has access to most of his games on Xbox Live and Steam. There is do distinguishable difference between running the game on a local PC vs having it streamed.

For $20USD a month, it is an absolute steal. I was considering getting him a 9700xt, but with this service, there is no need. An added bonus is that he can stream to his phone and laptop and experience the same fidelity. Even though I don't game nearly as much as I used to, I decided to get the subscription myself (largely in anticipation of Borderlands 4).

If you have a fast internet connection, I would strongly encourage you to look into Geforce Now.

PS: The main drawback for me is that I actually enjoy building and overclocking PCs.... far more than I do actual gaming. While it would never replace a PC for me personally, if all you do is game, it is the perfect service.

It's cool to see someone talk about this. I've been trying for years to get more on the forum to actually try it out. Even the free tier gives you a taste of how good cloud gaming has gotten. It's perfectly acceptable to play. GeForce Now is definitely the leader still with the Xbox Gaming Cloud chasing it.

Having said that, it requires a strong internet connection, and it is still not on par with a local PC's graphic fidelity. The reason is the data rate. Not many gamers appreciate just what an extraordinary amount of information flows between their computing device and their display. It's only possible because of the latest HDMI and Displayport standards.

By default NVIDIA limits you in the app to a maximum 50 Mbps*. GeForce Now users have tested the service within the past six months, and even for those who manually edited ini files, they found the hard cap the server permits for data to flow out is around 90 Mbps, but that's pointless, anyway. The reason is NVIDIA doesn't want the data outflow to exceed 50 Mbps per user because of the burdens it would impose on their servers, and so they've calibrated their encoders to target a compression at a maximum of 50 Mbps from the raw amount. The image quality is remarkable considering how limited this amount of data is. Given, this is nearly double what most streaming services output for their 4K content, but also bear in mind a game is not mere playback of a mostly static 2D image.

Here is a table showing you what the uncompressed data rate is at various resolutions and framerates. I'll only list the major 16:9 resolutions and go up to 240Hz since that is what GFN limits for its output, anyway. Also, these figures below are for 8-bit color depth since that's what most of us are still on, and always have been, but true 10-bit displays are finally more common. However, the games must still be programmed to support true 10-bit HDR color. The bandwidth is listed in Gbps (50 Mbps = 0.05 Gbps).

Resolution	Framerate	Bitrate (Gbps)
NVIDIA GeForce Now	Max Bitrate	0.075
1080p	60	3.73
1080p	144	8.96
1080p	240	14.93
1440p	60	6.64
1440p	144	15.93
1440p	240	26.54
4K	60	14.93
4K	144	35.83
4K	240	59.72

*Edit: In jumping onto the service for the first time in a good while to test my present latency, I discovered that they now allow up to 75Mbps in max bitrate in the app. Updated to reflect that.

 

[KaNesDeath]

My 14 year old nephew is really into gaming and was looking into a GPU upgrade (The PC I built him is decent, 12700k, 32GB of ram, but he is using an Arc 750). He games at 2560x1600 on a 144hz panel.

Given the ludicrous price of modern GPUs, I began doing some digging into modern cloud gaming services, and decided to get him the Geforce ultimate subscription.

After fiddling around with the settings (initially some input lag), the experience has been amazing. The cloud PC has the equivalent of a 16 core processor and an RTX 4080. In September it will be upgraded to the equivalent of an RTX 5080. He has access to most of his games on Xbox Live and Steam. There is do distinguishable difference between running the game on a local PC vs having it streamed.

Such cloud based gaming services will see a minimal rise in usage within the coming years. Caused by Nvidias GPU monopoly pricing and Trumps tariffs/inflation policies. However as a technology cloud based gaming is relatively in a perpetual stagnate state. Even considering the worst case scenario of Sony charging monthly for Playstation to have internet access. Its still cheaper to purchase a console for their ~7 year shelf life.

Terms of its input latency this is dependent upon where the user lives. If in or close to a large city itll be better than console but still way worse than Pc. For whether people like it or not. Live service PvP games are the main driving factor in video games for nearly two decades now. An cloud based gaming will never be able to match its required performance.

Then we have the rabbit hole of consumers pushing back on the amount of available subscription models in the entertainment industry and beyond.

 

[PBAC]

my uncle was just bald and always talked about scalping my hair

he did also build our first PC ... also head scalping.

 

[Madmick]

Such cloud based gaming services will see a minimal rise in usage within the coming years. Caused by Nvidias GPU monopoly pricing and Trumps tariffs/inflation policies.

How in the hell would this stymie a growth of GeForce Now usage?

 

[KaNesDeath]

How in the hell would this stymie a growth of GeForce Now usage?

Considering what i posted said it'll contribute to growth, though minuscule. Your interpretation is just you being you.

 

[Madmick]

Considering what i posted said it'll contribute to growth, though minuscule. Your interpretation is just you being you.

That's not an answer. I didn't ask about degree. I asked how? I don't understand how you think these things are related.

 

[KaNesDeath]

That's not an answer. I didn't ask about degree. I asked how? I don't understand how you think these things are related.

Not interested in creating a post based off your interpretation. That should be your intent.

 

[avenue94]

That's not an answer. I didn't ask about degree. I asked how? I don't understand how you think these things are related.

It theoretically shifts the tariff burden (which isn't too bad atm since silicon is exempt but still hurts) from board partners back to Nvidia since the datacenters for the US are domestic. That's all I got from that.

I'm more bearish on streaming because these are early adopter grow usage prices, not actual market prices. Once you have critical mass, you squeeze them, jus like modern media streaming.

 

[Madmick]

Not interested in creating a post based off your interpretation. That should be your intent.

My "interpretation"? I didn't offer an opinion. I asked a question.

You wrote, "Such cloud based gaming services will see a minimal rise in usage within the coming years. Caused by Nvidias GPU monopoly pricing and Trumps tariffs/inflation policies." So you clearly attribute a constricted growth of cloud based gaming services like NVIDIA GeForce Now, the topic of the thread, to NVIDIA's GPU monopoly and Trump's tariff policies.

Are you saying that this "interpretation" of what you wrote is incorrect? If so, how? Because it seems to me you're backpedaling on that assertion rather than substantiate the logic behind it.

 

[KaNesDeath]

My "interpretation"? I didn't offer an opinion. I asked a question.

Your question is based upon your opinion to what Geforce Now is as a market share service.

Me saying the technology has stagnated since introduction thatll see minuscule growth triggered by Nvidia/Trump practices. You are coming in under the premise that my statement of "minuscule growth" is a "hinderance". So your question is you asking me to argue your viewpoint.

 

[Madmick]

Your question is based upon your opinion to what Geforce Now is as a market share service.

I said nothing about market share. I expressed no opinions about this, or predictions of growth.

Me saying the technology has stagnated since introduction thatll see minuscule growth triggered by Nvidia/Trump practices. You are coming in under the premise that my statement of "minuscule growth" is a "hinderance". So your question is you asking me to argue your viewpoint.

Because that is what your language implies. Otherwise, it would make more sense to describe your prediction of growth in the coming years to be "small" or "nominal" or "meager" or "insignificant" or "trivial" or any of a hundred other terms. The term "minimal" suggests an opportunity cost. Because, presumably, there is a greater potential for growth of usage it won't be maximizing due to the reasons you cited in the following sentence: NVIDIA's GPU monopoly and Trump's tariff policies.

I might dismiss this under your response's affirmation you simply are a poor writer, not in control of the language he uses, but even if that is true, it still doesn't make sense of the comment. Because it's one or the other. If it isn't what your language actually indicates, that it will constrict growth, then it's the opposite you appear to claim in post #7, which is that those things will contribute to growth. In some way you have argued there is a relationship.

How? How do you see those things as related?

 

[jefferz]

I'm too far away from a server, so my latency is over 80ms with their built-in test. I live in the middle of nowhere in the Midwest, and the closest server is 700 miles away.
SOTR and one of the Arkham Batman games were unplayable. I was missing quick time events, jitters, etc.

I'm sure Nvidia plans on rolling out servers in more locations in the future, but it's just not viable for me, yet.


Are data caps still a thing with some ISP's? I'm going to assume this goes through data like crazy.
I know a couple of years ago, there was a big uproar about data caps. Then Covid hit, and a lot of the companies removed those caps.

 

[Madmick]

It's true the flyover states are still deep in a no man's land of cloud servers. Cool website I found checking this out:

Cloud Gaming Datacenter Locations

Location of all cloud gaming data centers for Xbox Cloud Gaming, GeForce NOW, Boosteroid, Amazon Luna and other services.

clouddosage.com

Same story you see with most networking infrastructure. Locations are heavily concentrated on the Pacific Rim, in New England, around Chicago, in Texas, and with some in Florida.

Mine is only 26ms, and I see that their in-app network test says <80ms is "Required", with 40ms "Recommended". I had no issue running Batman: Arkham Knight. It's not entirely clear to me why 80ms is a target when pings that exceed that are common in competitive MP games, and local latency of the 8th gen and earlier consoles was often worse than that, but I assume it has to do with the signal having to travel both ways before it registers, and I suppose the time it takes for NVIDIA to process requests while running the game adds to that. Until there are servers within a few hundred miles of everyone this won't become the predominant form of gaming, that much is clear.

 

[KaNesDeath]

It's true the flyover states are still deep in a no man's land of cloud servers.

Which will continue to be. In June the FCC standards of setting bitrate goals and helping subsidize the expansion of cable/fiber of ISP's was removed to push Elons Starlink..

Mine is only 26ms, and I see that their in-app network test says <80ms is "Required", with 40ms "Recommended". I had no issue running Batman: Arkham Knight. It's not entirely clear to me why 80ms is a target when pings that exceed that are common in competitive MP games,

Nvidia saying 80ms is interesting. For thats the latency value between the two coasts.

 

[Madmick]

Which will continue to be. In June the FCC standards of setting bitrate goals and helping subsidize the expansion of cable/fiber of ISP's was removed to push Elons Starlink..

Nvidia saying 80ms is interesting. For thats the latency value between the two coasts.

Why are you still talking in this thread without answering a simple question? I don't care what your opinions are on anything. You won't explain what Trump's tariffs and NVIDIA's GPU monopoly have to do with your prior statement.

You always do this. You pontificate in vague, cryptic, half-broken sentences, then you flee the moment someone challenges you to substantiate your claims. You are truly the epitome of a sophist.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Why are you still talking in this thread without answering a simple question? I don't care what your opinions are on anything.

Then perhaps stop asking me questions.

 

[SandisLL]

Such cloud based gaming services will see a minimal rise in usage within the coming years. Caused by Nvidias GPU monopoly pricing and Trumps tariffs/inflation policies. However as a technology cloud based gaming is relatively in a perpetual stagnate state. Even considering the worst case scenario of Sony charging monthly for Playstation to have internet access. Its still cheaper to purchase a console for their ~7 year shelf life.

Terms of its input latency this is dependent upon where the user lives. If in or close to a large city itll be better than console but still way worse than Pc. For whether people like it or not. Live service PvP games are the main driving factor in video games for nearly two decades now. An cloud based gaming will never be able to match its required performance.

Then we have the rabbit hole of consumers pushing back on the amount of available subscription models in the entertainment industry and beyond.

NVIDIA might push up prices not only cos gamers demand.
GPUs are used also for compuntimg tasks. CUDA etc type stuff and a lot.

GPUs are used also for cryptography solutions and de chiphering tasks etc...not only by gamers.

 

[Madmick]

NVIDIA might push up prices not only cos gamers demand.
GPUs are used also for compuntimg tasks. CUDA etc type stuff and a lot.

GPUs are used also for cryptography solutions and de chiphering tasks etc...not only by gamers.

He's aware of that.