-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0
- Thread starter Boomstick777
- Start date
Turns out Polaris is a Cloud based GPU solution, so you buy it from AMD and then they run the games and programs on their end, and stream it to your computer. So the better your connection the better your experience.
Your mistake was expecting any new info about Polaris in the first place
Seems it's still months away, and AMD have a very tight lid with no leaks.Might as well discuss monster truck racing in here for the next couple months.
Funny enough, AMD introed new workstation cards which kinda is cloud GPU serving multiple remote/virtual users
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,063
- Location
- In a house
Cloud based? they need a new definition for Polaris.
Nebula Computing, Only with AMD Polaris on the new Radeon Black-Body edition.
Star power in your tower.
Hang on a minute, so its ok to have CPU talk, Nvidia talk and god knows what else in this thread, but not network talk?
None of it belongs.
They'll be doing it over USB 3.1, so it doesn't matter if DP1.3 lacks the BW
I think you are missunderstanding how DP over usb3.1 and Thunderbolt works.
You need all 4 of the USB 3.1 Channels on a USB 3.1 cable to run DP at full rate. it essentialy makes the USB 3.1 cable a DP cable only with no USB 3.1 connection over it. You are only left with power channels and USB 2.1 aux chanel.
The situation is similar on Thunderbolt. But you are also limited by the DP spec. It does not matter if your cable can run at higher bandwidths, unless the connector and cable support double the number of lanes then you won't be running 120hz 4K HDR with DP1.3a due to the DP spec.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yup, before overhead DP 1.3 is 32Gbit/s, USB 3.1 is 10Gbit/s (not sure if that is with encoding or not tbh).
You can chain multiple USB channels together in a DP cable but DP has significantly superior bandwidth and it's not enough for 120hz @ 4k with HDR. What we might see is either 4k screens with two dp1.3 cables, or wait for DP 1.4 spec which I honestly can't find much information about, new encoding used from what I can see but I can't actually see what the bandwidth of the cables is intended to be, same as 1.3 with new encoding giving lower overhead(DP 1.3 is ~25Gbit/s with encoding) or if it's going to increase bandwidth as well.
You can chain multiple USB channels together in a DP cable but DP has significantly superior bandwidth and it's not enough for 120hz @ 4k with HDR. What we might see is either 4k screens with two dp1.3 cables, or wait for DP 1.4 spec which I honestly can't find much information about, new encoding used from what I can see but I can't actually see what the bandwidth of the cables is intended to be, same as 1.3 with new encoding giving lower overhead(DP 1.3 is ~25Gbit/s with encoding) or if it's going to increase bandwidth as well.
I am surprised that they never changed the encoding scheme when they went to DP1.3. It still uses 8/10b encoding. Considering that PCI-E3.0 went to 128/130b encoding in 2010. DP1.3 was finalised in 2014. it makes a big difference, dropping the overhead from 20% to 1.3%.
You would think that everything woudl start shifting to lower encoding overhead schemes. It was what allowed the big jump between usb3.0 and 3.1
You would think that everything woudl start shifting to lower encoding overhead schemes. It was what allowed the big jump between usb3.0 and 3.1
Funny enough, AMD introed new workstation cards which kinda is cloud GPU serving multiple remote/virtual users
I know, this is exactly what Polaris aka Nebula is going to be! We all know the time of the Cloud is NOW!
I'm also really happy they're stepping up their workstation area again, really liked their FirePros when I used them.
AMD seem to be aiming to catch up with NVidia on a few fronts with the new Polaris architecture, ie: 4k60 recording and cloud based services. How long before they try out cloud based game streaming like NVidia's grid.
It would be nice to see these things done internally rather than farmed out to 3rd parties, but I guess that is not AMD's style.
It would be nice to see these things done internally rather than farmed out to 3rd parties, but I guess that is not AMD's style.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yeah, the more R&D spent on cloud gaming the better.... because it's god awful, will always be god awful and can't physically not be god awful.
VR they are all aiming for 90hz to be smooth, reduce potential sickness inducing feelings... but cloud gaming with a normally 200ms latency... that is the future. Cloud gaming can't and won't overcome the limits of travelling across multiple network links, then being processed then travelling back before being delivered to the user. Until you can make cloud gaming provide sub one frame communication time frames it can't and won't ever replace local gaming in responsiveness, quality or feel. People on these forums complain about input lag from v-sync which is typically in the 16-32ms range, but cloud gaming with 10 times the latency is somehow going to be great. Cloud gaming is about as responsive as it's ever going to get and Onlive sucks with most people hating it because latency is way way way way way ...... way way way way way too high. Until physics can be broken, communication at beyond the speed of light and a network infrastructure which means passing on signals takes a tiny tiny fraction of what it does now at each stage then cloud gaming is a pipe dream. Pipe dream is the wrong word for it, I can't think of a single benefit to cloud gaming over gaming on your own PC at all. Modding, gone, changing settings to your own preference, likely gone (for stability/ease of making sure the game works having one setting is far easier their end), great resolution/ever increasing quality, gone. You don't have to buy your own PC is about the only upside of cloud gaming. But I want my own PC, I want to play games the way they suit me, I want higher fps even at the expense of quality, I want to turn off 'high' settings that actually reduce IQ like motion blur/DOF, I want to be able to mod games. Cloud gaming is **** and offers no real world benefits to anything but casual gamers who might sub for a month here or there to play the odd game.
I would prefer AMD spent as little of the money I gave them on something that has no chance of ever providing viable gaming for home users personally and if some third party company of idiots wants to use AMD hardware to provide a cloud service I won't ever use I'd far prefer that over AMD wasting money providing the same **** service. Out of interest, how many Nvidia users on here do you think have or would give up their PC and use GRID over a Shield like device connected to a TV instead... 0%, 0.00002%?
Also hardware virtualisation on AMD hardware has very little to do with cloud gaming, it isn't the intention or reason it was implemented.
VR they are all aiming for 90hz to be smooth, reduce potential sickness inducing feelings... but cloud gaming with a normally 200ms latency... that is the future. Cloud gaming can't and won't overcome the limits of travelling across multiple network links, then being processed then travelling back before being delivered to the user. Until you can make cloud gaming provide sub one frame communication time frames it can't and won't ever replace local gaming in responsiveness, quality or feel. People on these forums complain about input lag from v-sync which is typically in the 16-32ms range, but cloud gaming with 10 times the latency is somehow going to be great. Cloud gaming is about as responsive as it's ever going to get and Onlive sucks with most people hating it because latency is way way way way way ...... way way way way way too high. Until physics can be broken, communication at beyond the speed of light and a network infrastructure which means passing on signals takes a tiny tiny fraction of what it does now at each stage then cloud gaming is a pipe dream. Pipe dream is the wrong word for it, I can't think of a single benefit to cloud gaming over gaming on your own PC at all. Modding, gone, changing settings to your own preference, likely gone (for stability/ease of making sure the game works having one setting is far easier their end), great resolution/ever increasing quality, gone. You don't have to buy your own PC is about the only upside of cloud gaming. But I want my own PC, I want to play games the way they suit me, I want higher fps even at the expense of quality, I want to turn off 'high' settings that actually reduce IQ like motion blur/DOF, I want to be able to mod games. Cloud gaming is **** and offers no real world benefits to anything but casual gamers who might sub for a month here or there to play the odd game.
I would prefer AMD spent as little of the money I gave them on something that has no chance of ever providing viable gaming for home users personally and if some third party company of idiots wants to use AMD hardware to provide a cloud service I won't ever use I'd far prefer that over AMD wasting money providing the same **** service. Out of interest, how many Nvidia users on here do you think have or would give up their PC and use GRID over a Shield like device connected to a TV instead... 0%, 0.00002%?
Also hardware virtualisation on AMD hardware has very little to do with cloud gaming, it isn't the intention or reason it was implemented.
Last edited:
Unless you had localised servers in your town/city etc. it will always be bad. You can't get rid of the inherent latency of the internet. And you have to remember that the latency is double what a ping to the server would be. then any server latency added on top.
They also control what res, FPS and IQ its streamed at.
For people like us who have high powered PC's for a reason its not a good thing.
Its alight if all you have is a Console or a Tablet.
Of course it is not great compared to playing on a modern high spec gaming Pc, but it is a start and possibly one of the futures of gaming. Just think I bet blockbusters would have never thought they would be put out of business by online movie streaming, I can see it happening to gaming at some point in the future. Most certainly the tech isn't good enough yet though.
If a console maker was to build a cheap, simple streaming console around this tech, with the whole gimmick being you never have to buy another game, just pay their monthly service fee. Not too dissimilar to XBox's games for gold, where they keep you paying for the service with free games every month.
If a console maker was to build a cheap, simple streaming console around this tech, with the whole gimmick being you never have to buy another game, just pay their monthly service fee. Not too dissimilar to XBox's games for gold, where they keep you paying for the service with free games every month.