External graphics docks or eGPUs will inevitably be a growing threat to gaming laptops

[_MT_]

Another consideration, and something a friend and I were discussing last night, is that gaming is going more online, in a Netflix-type model, i.e. cloud gaming.obsolete.

It's funny to see gamers agonize about latency - mouse latency, display latency, touchscreen latency. And then decide to add Internet into the mix which has significant latencies and jitter to boot. We have the technology to build incredibly fast networks. But we are not using them. Take InfiniBand. At one point, it was projected to replace Ethernet, at least within datacentres (although it can be used even across long distances, cross continents). It was cheaper, had higher bandwidth and much lower latency. It didn't. It established itself in supercomputers but that's pretty much it. This demonstrates that even in large business, IT isn't entirely rational. There is quite a lot of conservatism. It's gets only worse for wireless (and worse still if it goes via satelite).

[vertigo]

Well, if the display isn't powered from a grid and there is only one cable connecting the laptop with the display, where does the power come from? Laptop's battery? Instead of charging it at home while it's "docked," you'd be discharging it? That's why you need two ports. And that's why I think it makes more sense (in the general case) to have display powered from the grid and use it to charge your laptop over the same cable that is used to send video to the display.

My point was that USB is already there. As long as you can live with the 100 W limit.

It could draw power from the laptop's battery, since if it's a low-power display, similar to the ones in laptops, it wouldn't be a huge impact on it. Of course, more likely the laptop would be plugged in and would just pass power from the AC adapter through the USB to the monitor. And, of course, with a desktop, that would certainly make more sense, since you wouldn't need, or be able to, power the desktop from the monitor. So my point is that either way, you need a cable between the computer and the display, and so it makes more sense, in the example situation I gave where you're using a portable touchscreen display to control the computer without having to be sitting at it, to only have that one cable, and have it supplying video, USB, and power from the computer, vs having two cables attached to it, one going to the computer and one plugged into an outlet. And again, with a low-power display, this absolutely should be possible within the 100W limit of USB (heck, 100W should be enough to power even an ~30" gaming display). But the bottom line is that it just doesn't make any sense to have two cables plugged into it going to different places, seriously limiting its portability, vs just one. That would make sense if you're actually on the laptop and just using the other display as a second monitor, and maybe that's what you're thinking, but remember, I'm talking about an entirely different situation.

[vertigo]

It's funny to see gamers agonize about latency - mouse latency, display latency, touchscreen latency. And then decide to add Internet into the mix which has significant latencies and jitter to boot.

That's something I've always wondered about cloud gaming and one of the things we talked about. I would expect it to make games borderline unplayable, but he said he didn't notice any latency and it was like playing the game locally. In fact, I think he said it was perhaps even better, though that could just be due to having better processing. And he does have fast internet with low latency. But still, I find it surprising. I told him he should try a twitch shooter, something that a little added latency would be most likely to make a difference. But even if it does, to be able to play 90%+ of games that way would be significant and a possible game-changer.

[_MT_]

It could draw power from the laptop's battery, since if it's a low-power display, similar to the ones in laptops, it wouldn't be a huge impact on it. Of course, more likely the laptop would be plugged in and would just pass power from the AC adapter through the USB to the monitor. And, of course, with a desktop, that would certainly make more sense, since you wouldn't need, or be able to, power the desktop from the monitor. So my point is that either way, you need a cable between the computer and the display, and so it makes more sense, in the example situation I gave where you're using a portable touchscreen display to control the computer without having to be sitting at it, to only have that one cable, and have it supplying video, USB, and power from the computer, vs having two cables attached to it, one going to the computer and one plugged into an outlet. And again, with a low-power display, this absolutely should be possible within the 100W limit of USB (heck, 100W should be enough to power even an ~30" gaming display). But the bottom line is that it just doesn't make any sense to have two cables plugged into it going to different places, seriously limiting its portability, vs just one. That would make sense if you're actually on the laptop and just using the other display as a second monitor, and maybe that's what you're thinking, but remember, I'm talking about an entirely different situation.

I know you're talking about a different situation. And as I said, I can imagine it very well for drawing tablets, for example. Or portable monitors. The biggest barrier probably being that a computer would have to be able to supply that much power (not a problem when you need 5 W, but the more you need, the more problematic it's going to be).

But for a desktop monitor, it doesn't make that much sense to me. Who cares if it's hooked up to a grid? And I'm pretty sure manufacturers would choose to implement it the other way around simply so they can offer a "docking" solution for laptops. Sure, you can't power a powerful PC from a monitor via USB. And why should you? But it works perfectly well for mini PCs. I've got one hooked up like that. Bonus is that I got rid of a power brick as most mini PCs don't have a built-in power supply (one thing I like about Mac mini; I really don't like bricks). My primary desktop monitor has something like six cables running through its stand and at least a half are thick. Yes, some desktop monitors could be USB powered and it might make sense in some situations, but I don't see desktop computers developing that capability.

[_MT_]

That's something I've always wondered about cloud gaming and one of the things we talked about. I would expect it to make games borderline unplayable, but he said he didn't notice any latency and it was like playing the game locally.

I don't agonize over latency. But then I don't compete in shooters. I just find it funny. I've got something like 6 ms ping to google and pretty stable. Can you tell extra 6 ms between mouse and display? But I wonder how it works when you've got 100+ ms. I know some people do have that much, even over 200 (I've got a friend in Australia who is so affected). And then there is jitter. My case is really that I don't like being dependent if I don't have to. And I like owning and controlling things. Some people never look back as there is always something new to play. I really like returning to old favourites. Of course, I'm dependent even off-line. Through compatibility.

[vertigo]

I don't agonize over latency. But then I don't compete in shooters. I just find it funny. I've got something like 6 ms ping to google and pretty stable. Can you tell extra 6 ms between mouse and display? But I wonder how it works when you've got 100+ ms. I know some people do have that much, even over 200 (I've got a friend in Australia who is so affected). And then there is jitter. My case is really that I don't like being dependent if I don't have to. And I like owning and controlling things. Some people never look back as there is always something new to play. I really like returning to old favourites. Of course, I'm dependent even off-line. Through compatibility.

That's 6ms to Google, though, not to the game server, which may be more. Still, I suspect you could probably go up to 30-50ms before most people would see any difference, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. And I've been unfortunate enough to have pretty lousy internet for the better part of the past decade, ranging from terrible to ok, with less than a year in there where I actually had really good internet, so I'm more hesitant to rely on it for gaming. And last night I had a ping of ~500-700, which was making even browsing unbearable, so I'd imagine even 100-200 would make gaming all but impossible. In fact, a few years ago, with the internet I had I was lucky to have a ping < ~60-70, and I rarely played games online with a friend just because it wasn't worth the frustration, not to mention the connection was downright unstable.

I'm guessing you don't use Steam for your games, since you don't own/control them then. I think it's ridiculous and should be illegal that you can buy a game but not own it.

[_MT_]

That's 6ms to Google, though, not to the game server, which may be more. Still, I suspect you could probably go up to 30-50ms before most people would see any difference, but it's an interesting thought nonetheless. And I've been unfortunate enough to have pretty lousy internet for the better part of the past decade, ranging from terrible to ok, with less than a year in there where I actually had really good internet, so I'm more hesitant to rely on it for gaming. And last night I had a ping of ~500-700, which was making even browsing unbearable, so I'd imagine even 100-200 would make gaming all but impossible. In fact, a few years ago, with the internet I had I was lucky to have a ping < ~60-70, and I rarely played games online with a friend just because it wasn't worth the frustration, not to mention the connection was downright unstable.

I'm guessing you don't use Steam for your games, since you don't own/control them then. I think it's ridiculous and should be illegal that you can buy a game but not own it.

I would need a relevant (geographically) address to test. It's just a question of infrastructure. Getting those servers close enough to people. I tried play.geforcenow.com and got 6-7. I know that is still not a game server. But I don't think Nvidia has a local server. I remember that over 15 years ago, I had about 8-9 ms to a local search engine (definitely) and something in low 10s for Google, but I'm fuzzy about that (perhaps only 10-11, not entirely sure).

It's just a question of how you frame it. If you're buying a perpetual licence giving you access to a game, the licence is what you own. And it can be limited to their system (but they should be clear about it). You are allowed to access the game and play it. However, similarly to electronic distribution, vendor might just stop offering a download and if you don't have a copy, you're screwed. Licence is useless without the software. Unless the contract you have with them guarantees you availability (which won't solve going out of business). For a long time, there has been a discussion whether you're paying for a licence or a medium when you buy a CD. The thing being that you're buying a CD, not signing a licensing agreement (and while it might contain EULA, it's a bit too late, isn't it, to stipulate conditions on a purchase that already happened). The root of the problem being that in the computer world, copying is trivial. A car manufacturer doesn't have to worry that you'll just knock out copies for your entire family. There is no need to split hair between having a car and a licence to use it. What I'm looking for is it being a one time thing, done and dusted. Fixed, unchangeable. Not a continuing engagement where the deal might change on me. Updates being another potentially problematic area. We all like getting new features for free, but only as long as it works out for us.