Why settle for a compressed 1080p stream without surround sound? Just run HDMI over ethernet to your TV/AVR and mirror your display (assuming you have a 1080p display) from the PC. Then grab a 360 controller PC adapter and get it as close as possible to the room (360 controller range is about 30ft, get a powered hub if necessary). Pretty easy and cheap, no NVIDIA hardware restriction. A wireless mouse and keyboard can be done the same way...
Meh. If people were going to do that, they would have by now. For me, my gaming PC is way too far away from my TV to make something like this practical.
Playing with latency is laughable, if you want to play on your TV or projector, there have been ways for ages. If you're only going to do it now that streaming techniques are available, you might as well get a console because you're not really interested in proper gaming.
Depends on how much latency. We will have to wait and see. If its 10ms that's totally acceptable for the kinds of games you'll be playing on your couch with a controller. Surely you don't think this is meant for hardcore fps and competitive gaming. This is for skyrim and tomb raider.
They're going to be doing some uart magick, as regular usb2.0 won't be fast enough for 1080p. What was the name of the short-distance, ultra-fast wireless standard ? Because we need that for streaming. WiGig.
And we'd be far better off having h.264/h.265 decoders in the display devices rather than having them in some sort of middleware of a controller.
Blu-ray movies are only around 6 MB/s (48Mb/s) at 24fps; 24fps *2.5=60fps so 48mb/s*2.5=120mb/s. USB 2.0 is 60MB/s (480Mb/s) Plenty for 4 1080 streams at 60 fps.
Assuming consumer grade hardware will be less efficient I'd say there is at least room for one 1080@60 there.
So the future of PC gaming from AMD or Nvidia is proprietary tech to lock users into their hardware. Against the very core nature of what PC gaming has been about from the beginning. We have console for people who want that. I'm sick of Valve, AMD and now Nvidia wanting to do the same to the PC. Screw all their junk.
Well.. they're trying to differentiate more. Apart from proprietary technologies there's little reason to choose either for pure gaming. Not saying this is a good idea, but if any of this would make it into widely adopted open standards everybody wins. So let them try to figure out first what works well and what doesn't. Or let us figure out what's worth our money and what's not.
as I understood this looks like a more open and standard solution since just depends that you have a device that has wireless display capabilities: http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd/b... however the article is quite sparse and you will have to investigate further. I wonder why AMD does not presents things in an easier way to end user. Their technology is way better than their marketing department.
If they can ever get to the point I can stream from:
PC > Remote Cloud > Shield
I'd be sold. I will probably wait for 1 hardware iteration before I jump in on Shield though. Bigger screen, refined form factor, faster Tegra SoC, 802.11 AC and I think I'd be ready to dive in.
Hasn't this http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd/b... + a wireless controller much more sense than using the NVidia solution? Just in case your pc does not support it, a miracast dongle costs 30bucks...
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
pancakes - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
Shield + USB hub + ethernet adapter + Xbox 360 controller = Good times for all?A5 - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
Sounds expensive.nathanddrews - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
Why settle for a compressed 1080p stream without surround sound? Just run HDMI over ethernet to your TV/AVR and mirror your display (assuming you have a 1080p display) from the PC. Then grab a 360 controller PC adapter and get it as close as possible to the room (360 controller range is about 30ft, get a powered hub if necessary). Pretty easy and cheap, no NVIDIA hardware restriction. A wireless mouse and keyboard can be done the same way...A5 - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
Meh. If people were going to do that, they would have by now. For me, my gaming PC is way too far away from my TV to make something like this practical.A5 - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
*this being your solution, not the streaming thing.That said, I'd rather get a Steambox streamer than a Shield.
nathanddrews - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
Different strokes for different folks... ;-)SetiroN - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
^ thisPlaying with latency is laughable, if you want to play on your TV or projector, there have been ways for ages.
If you're only going to do it now that streaming techniques are available, you might as well get a console because you're not really interested in proper gaming.
SlyNine - Sunday, October 20, 2013 - link
Depends on how much latency. We will have to wait and see. If its 10ms that's totally acceptable for the kinds of games you'll be playing on your couch with a controller. Surely you don't think this is meant for hardcore fps and competitive gaming. This is for skyrim and tomb raider.nevertell - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
They're going to be doing some uart magick, as regular usb2.0 won't be fast enough for 1080p.What was the name of the short-distance, ultra-fast wireless standard ? Because we need that for streaming. WiGig.
And we'd be far better off having h.264/h.265 decoders in the display devices rather than having them in some sort of middleware of a controller.
SlyNine - Sunday, October 20, 2013 - link
Blu-ray movies are only around 6 MB/s (48Mb/s) at 24fps; 24fps *2.5=60fps so 48mb/s*2.5=120mb/s. USB 2.0 is 60MB/s (480Mb/s) Plenty for 4 1080 streams at 60 fps.Assuming consumer grade hardware will be less efficient I'd say there is at least room for one 1080@60 there.
Jumangi - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
So the future of PC gaming from AMD or Nvidia is proprietary tech to lock users into their hardware. Against the very core nature of what PC gaming has been about from the beginning. We have console for people who want that. I'm sick of Valve, AMD and now Nvidia wanting to do the same to the PC. Screw all their junk.MrSpadge - Saturday, October 19, 2013 - link
Well.. they're trying to differentiate more. Apart from proprietary technologies there's little reason to choose either for pure gaming. Not saying this is a good idea, but if any of this would make it into widely adopted open standards everybody wins. So let them try to figure out first what works well and what doesn't. Or let us figure out what's worth our money and what's not.polaco - Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - link
as I understood this looks like a more open and standard solution since just depends that you have a device that has wireless display capabilities:http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd/b...
however the article is quite sparse and you will have to investigate further. I wonder why AMD does not presents things in an easier way to end user. Their technology is way better than their marketing department.
chizow - Friday, October 18, 2013 - link
If they can ever get to the point I can stream from:PC > Remote Cloud > Shield
I'd be sold. I will probably wait for 1 hardware iteration before I jump in on Shield though. Bigger screen, refined form factor, faster Tegra SoC, 802.11 AC and I think I'd be ready to dive in.
polaco - Wednesday, October 23, 2013 - link
Hasn't this http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd/b... + a wireless controller much more sense than using the NVidia solution?Just in case your pc does not support it, a miracast dongle costs 30bucks...