The current chip shortage is preventing eGPUs from becoming mainstream. Once it's over, however, we suspect that many gamers will opt for an affordable eGPU over paying 2x to 3x the price for a full-fledged gaming laptop of similar graphics performance.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/External-graphics-docks-or-eGPUs-will-inevitably-be-a-growing-threat-to-gaming-laptops.538181.0.html
eGPUs have been out for a long time, but their prices have not fallen significantly.
More importantly, laptops like a a dell or Razer with just an i7 and TB4 have very high prices, which is the reason eGPUs have not taken off yet.
Not really, at least not until
1. Ryzen U15 and H35, 8C/16T CPU Ultrabooks get Thunderbolt support to be able to take advantage of their speed
2. Thunderbolt gets PCIe Gen 4.0 x8 Lane upgrade to remove bottleneck
3. eGPU cases become a lot more affordable at around $50-100 price point
4. Ultrabooks with iGPU and Thunderbolt gets MUX switches designed specifically for eGPU use
5. Desktop dGPU prices return to normal MSRP and hopefully lower, after the chip shortage ends and AMD RDNA2 becomes more competitive with Nvidia GPUs for Ray-Tracing and DLSS
When this convergence happens all at once in the future? Then surely why not. Who knows, maybe Apple will start making their own discrete graphic cards before that happens.
I'd certainly buy one if the prices were rational.
Intel scammy misleading 2 PCIe lane thunderbolt has kept eGPUs from becoming popular in the past. We need AMD to step up.
It makes a lot more sense to just get a second computer. eGPUs are expensive, it's not sure your laptop will support it (and what about the next laptop) or whether you will be able to use the next GPU in it and why would you store games on the laptop's ssd when you need to dock it to play them. You will need a display, keyboard and mouse anyway. I got a second hand fractal node 202 with 1060 for 300 bucks and I'm super happy
That depends on what you want to do. I can imagine some people using an ultrabook with an eGPU when they need something portable and game only at home. It could potentially also make sense if a mobile chip wasn't enough for you (subject to the limitation of used connection). However, if someone wants a mobile gaming computer (e.g. a frequent flyer), I don't really see them lugging around eGPUs (not to mention monitors). If you don't mind lugging boxes around, you can build a compact gaming desktop. I use Corsair One as a transportable desktop (not cheap but neat). And in your cost analysis, if it can be called that, you're forgetting the cost of a laptop. Many gaming laptops can be used on the go instead of an ultrabook. Yes, it's a compromise. You save some money and you pay with comfort and convenience.
More than an eGPU, I would like VPU (dedicated Video Processing Unit) that has the best quality hardware encoder for AV1. I would buy that as an add-on for my laptop or desktop.
Even HEVC CPU encoding at x265 Slow for 1080p and 4K finishes in reasonable time but CPU encoding for AV1 is just too painful and processors are unlikely to make double-triple digit gains in encoding it.
Quote from: adt_link_R43SG-TB3 on May 10, 2021, 10:43:41
Intel scammy misleading 2 PCIe lane thunderbolt has kept eGPUs from becoming popular in the past. We need AMD to step up.
Bitch please , dont blame the limitation of pcie lane on intel. Amd cant even sort out their pcie controller problem for simple usb application.
Not really OP.
They have been out for a while and they haven't really caught on yet.
The idea is solid but until the get rid of more performance loss when using a laptop internal screen and reduce price it will always be a niche thing .
I tend to agree with this article, and would encourage the adoption of more eGPUs, but Notebookcheck needs to start calling laptop makers out for providing inadequate cooling for laptop CPUs.
A laptop maker should not sell you a $450 1185g7 (just the CPU cost) in a laptop with an 18w cooler. It's a scam.
The all-core turbo on an 1165g7 consumes about 50w at 4.1ghz.
Yet another crap piece of writing by Allen. What will drive eGPUs will be the rollout of USB 4 when AMD will be able to offer it! Simple!
Personally, I'm really looking forward to getting a USB4 AMD laptop for this very reason. The iGPUs have come a long way, and can handle much of my gaming needs, especially on the go, but it would be nice to be able to have a compact, lightweight, long-lasting, portable laptop that can do handle most of what I throw at it on its own but can have an eGPU attached to be able to play more demanding games. Of course, that would only be something I would use at home or occasionally when traveling (e.g. friend's house, hotel, etc) when I would be able to hook it all up to a TV or external monitor, not when on the move. But it would allow me to just have the one computer (laptop) and no longer need a desktop. Assuming, of course, the laptop manufacturers ever start offering decent amounts of RAM, ideally 64GB but at the very least 32. And a 2.5" slot (or two) would be ideal to be able to make that happen as well, though that's a lot to ask in a compact laptop.
eGPUs are kinda crap ... so far the drop in FPS is significant and microstuttering is not fully solved even by gsync. I am not sure whether even higher bandwith is ever gonna change that.
the comment above is correct, they are crap. they are heavy & slow, you can literally get away with getting a corsair one or msi slim gaming machines. there is no way you can make your notebook more portable-ish with this setup.
Quote from: vertigo on May 10, 2021, 18:31:45
Personally, I'm really looking forward to getting a USB4 AMD laptop for this very reason.
Has there been any confirmation from AMD that they will implement Thunderbolt in their USB4 controller? Because it's not mandatory. You can have a USB4 controller that doesn't support Thunderbolt at all. And USB4 in itself doesn't provide any facility for eGPUs. Even when it comes to USB itself, it still relies on USB 3.2. It just uses the technology of Thunderbolt to provide tunnelling, to put it simply. So a single connector and cable can carry, for example, USB 3.2 and DisplayPort at the same time (like external storage hooked up to a monitor). But the support for PCIe tunnelling, which is what full Thunderbolt offers and eGPUs utilize, is optional.
Quote from: _DOC on May 10, 2021, 15:56:17
A laptop maker should not sell you a $450 1185g7 (just the CPU cost) in a laptop with an 18w cooler. It's a scam.
Officially, it's a 15 W processor. And it can be configured as a 12 W unit. Or 28 W. What the manufacturer does with it is their decision. You don't have to buy it. All in all, 1185 doesn't make much sense. It was always the case. All you're getting over 1165 is higher bin silicon. You are paying premium for premium silicon. You might even get away with 1135.
Really, it's not in your interest to have a processor consume 50 W for any substantial period of time in an ultrabook. Battery would be flat in no time. The point is portability. If it lasts less than two hours, it's useless. When you have a 50 Wh rated battery, it's rated to provide 50 W for one hour. If you want your laptop to last 8 hours, you're looking at more like 6 W average. For the whole laptop. Ponder that.
eGPU concept has been around since 2008, with AMD and Fujitsu-Siemens collaborating on the short-lived XGP concept.
It hasn't caught on specifically because it ends up costing as much as just having a notebook and a separate gaming PC, but gives you worse performance and lower flexibility than a proper gaming notebook. I like gaming notebooks because I can game in different locations - different rooms of my house, different places, on a train, etc.
If the eGPU concept is really going to take off then, as others have noted, it will need to compete on both a cost and a convenience level with the alternatives. I honestly don't think that's going to happen any time soon, and I don't think the GPU shortage has anything at all to do with it.
I would say that the form factor that eGPUs currently adopt fundamentally undermines their own utility and arguments for their adoption.
The whole premise of external graphics - especially in the context of laptops - is that it is peripheral to the laptop itself.
Therefore, as a peripheral device the aim should be to supplement the weaknesses of laptops (limited compute power due to thermal, spatial and power constraints) whilst retaining the strengths of the platform (portability, accessibility, comfort - think quietness).
Now consider existing eGPU designs: almost universally, they are dedicated to accommodating already existing graphics cards, which themselves are designed as peripheral devices to (generally ATX format) desktop PCs. Do you see the problem here?
Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.
These constraints blow any arguments for portability out of the water and essentially resign eGPUs to stationary docking stations that ultimately provide an expensive and inferior alternative to a dedicated gaming/workstation PC.
Until this inherent contradiction is resolved, I cannot see eGPUs existing as more than a niche product.
Quote from: t4n0n on May 11, 2021, 14:22:49
I would say that the form factor that eGPUs currently adopt fundamentally undermines their own utility and arguments for their adoption.
The whole premise of external graphics - especially in the context of laptops - is that it is peripheral to the laptop itself.
Therefore, as a peripheral device the aim should be to supplement the weaknesses of laptops (limited compute power due to thermal, spatial and power constraints) whilst retaining the strengths of the platform (portability, accessibility, comfort - think quietness).
Now consider existing eGPU designs: almost universally, they are dedicated to accommodating already existing graphics cards, which themselves are designed as peripheral devices to (generally ATX format) desktop PCs. Do you see the problem here?
Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.
These constraints blow any arguments for portability out of the water and essentially resign eGPUs to stationary docking stations that ultimately provide an expensive and inferior alternative to a dedicated gaming/workstation PC.
Until this inherent contradiction is resolved, I cannot see eGPUs existing as more than a niche product.
eGPUs are for people who use their Ultrabooks - Thin & Light laptops - as a Primary, and Only PC for whatever reason. Their goal is to offer an "All-in-1" solution for a person who wants to save money instead of investing in an expensive Gaming Desktop + Ultrabook + more Electricity bills, while still being portable enough for long-distance travel when needed.
The core premise is that an eGPU consumer is not at all interested in buying a desktop PC, and wants to maintain the portability of a ~1kg laptop, while being able to independently upgrade their dGPU down the road. There lies the appeal and promise of eGPUs in the future, given the right conditions.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 11, 2021, 12:01:55
Quote from: vertigo on May 10, 2021, 18:31:45
Personally, I'm really looking forward to getting a USB4 AMD laptop for this very reason.
Has there been any confirmation from AMD that they will implement Thunderbolt in their USB4 controller? Because it's not mandatory. You can have a USB4 controller that doesn't support Thunderbolt at all. And USB4 in itself doesn't provide any facility for eGPUs. Even when it comes to USB itself, it still relies on USB 3.2. It just uses the technology of Thunderbolt to provide tunnelling, to put it simply. So a single connector and cable can carry, for example, USB 3.2 and DisplayPort at the same time (like external storage hooked up to a monitor). But the support for PCIe tunnelling, which is what full Thunderbolt offers and eGPUs utilize, is optional.
Not that I'm aware of. Now that you say that, I recall reading that months ago, but either forgot or thought there was something else to it or something. It would certainly be ridiculous for AMD
not to implement it, since they can and a lot of people see that as a big limiting factor to AMD over Intel, but I suppose if they see the eGPU situation the same as most it could make sense, though I still think it would be good for things like providing a display with video and USB for a built-in hub with one cable, not to mention maybe at some point finally being able to power a display off of USB as well, so one cable for everything.
Quote from: vertigo on May 11, 2021, 17:33:42
I still think it would be good for things like providing a display with video and USB for a built-in hub with one cable, not to mention maybe at some point finally being able to power a display off of USB as well, so one cable for everything.
USB4 will do that. As I wrote, you can have USB 3.2 and DisplayPort streams on the same cable. And Power Delivery works as well. Although, you'd power a laptop from a display, not the other way around (laptops are not designed to supply a lot of power to external devices as they are battery-powered). That way, you just connect one cable and laptop charges, display is connected and USB peripherals as well. But that's it. You're limited to USB. You can't connect PCIe based devices like GPUs, network cards or storage (if you want to go above USB 3 speeds). That's what you need Thunderbolt for.
Quote from: t4n0n on May 11, 2021, 14:22:49
Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.
A significant problem is that a GPU can require a lot of power. A laptop would have to get it from somewhere. And it gets only worse as a laptop (and its battery) gets smaller. You can't expect a laptop that was never designed to have a dGPU to power a dGPU. Even if the box is built around a mobile chip. Even a measly 65 W mobile chip is too much for a typical ultrabook.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 11, 2021, 19:30:25
USB4 will do that. As I wrote, you can have USB 3.2 and DisplayPort streams on the same cable. And Power Delivery works as well. Although, you'd power a laptop from a display, not the other way around (laptops are not designed to supply a lot of power to external devices as they are battery-powered). That way, you just connect one cable and laptop charges, display is connected and USB peripherals as well. But that's it. You're limited to USB. You can't connect PCIe based devices like GPUs, network cards or storage (if you want to go above USB 3 speeds). That's what you need Thunderbolt for.
I was thinking more along the lines of a laptop passing power through from AC to the monitor, i.e. powering a monitor when the laptop is plugged in. But also for desktops, to be able to have just one cord going from the desktop to the monitor for everything. An example use case for either situation, and something I've wanted to do before, is to get a touchscreen monitor and have it connected via one USB cable to provide poewr, video, and USB, so it could be used as a tethered tablet. This would be great for using a computer while in bed or on the couch.
Quote from: vertigo on May 11, 2021, 19:52:46
I was thinking more along the lines of a laptop passing power through from AC to the monitor, i.e. powering a monitor when the laptop is plugged in. But also for desktops, to be able to have just one cord going from the desktop to the monitor for everything. An example use case for either situation, and something I've wanted to do before, is to get a touchscreen monitor and have it connected via one USB cable to provide poewr, video, and USB, so it could be used as a tethered tablet. This would be great for using a computer while in bed or on the couch.
a) It would take up two ports on the laptop (one for a display and one for a power supply). Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but worth mentioning.
b) Laptop's power supply would have to be sized to accommodate a monitor. Making it bigger, heavier and more expensive.
c) The connector used for power supply would have to be able to carry enough power for both a laptop and a monitor. USB PD is not there - officially, it tops out at 100 W which is plenty for ultrabooks. But not enough for an ultrabook plus a desktop monitor.
d) And when it comes to power, it's not just a monitor, but also all the peripherals connected to it.
I can't see an advantage compared to the other way around where a monitor essentially acts as a power supply. So, a desktop monitor is permanently connected to the grid, potentially also a wired computer network, speakers, camera, whatever, powering all that. And by connecting a single cable, you get both power for a laptop and data, all the peripherals. Thunderbolt is superior for this but USB can work for anything that can be made as a USB device. You take up only one port on a laptop and you can keep a charger in a bag.
Yes, USB4 can be used to connect e.g. a drawing tablet to a desktop with a single cable. Assuming it can fit within a 100 W budget. But your computer has to be able to supply that much power on an USB port. Technically, USB allows it. But the motherboard manufacturer has to implement it. And similarly, tablet's manufacturer has to build it so it supports USB PD. The thing here is that they can't assume a computer will be able to supply enough power so there has to be an alternate means of powering it and so they might not bother with USB PD on the video/ data port at all (especially if only a few computers can supply enough power). If it's USB4, I think USB + video on one cable is given. The potential complication here is that USB-C is not that common on desktops and that they will probably want backward compatibility and some flexibility. Another complication is that video output on a desktop is often on a video card. You have to get video and USB on the same port, not to mention PCIe for Thunderbolt. This is easier in a laptop with its higher integration.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 12, 2021, 11:30:48
d) And when it comes to power, it's not just a monitor, but also all the peripherals connected to it.
I have forgotten to add that what matters is not how much you use, but how big is the budget the monitor has for peripherals. I don't want to rain on your parade but the point is that this largely rests with device manufacturers, to take advantage of what is possible. The main limitation of USB that you come up against is the 100 W limit. I can imagine it going up, to accommodate more powerful laptops, potentially increasing its utility for other applications. But there is a limit. USB-C exists primarily for "ultraportable" devices. That won't be compromised.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 12, 2021, 11:30:48
a) It would take up two ports on the laptop (one for a display and one for a power supply). Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but worth mentioning.
b) Laptop's power supply would have to be sized to accommodate a monitor. Making it bigger, heavier and more expensive.
c) The connector used for power supply would have to be able to carry enough power for both a laptop and a monitor. USB PD is not there - officially, it tops out at 100 W which is plenty for ultrabooks. But not enough for an ultrabook plus a desktop monitor.
d) And when it comes to power, it's not just a monitor, but also all the peripherals connected to it.
I can't see an advantage compared to the other way around where a monitor essentially acts as a power supply. So, a desktop monitor is permanently connected to the grid, potentially also a wired computer network, speakers, camera, whatever, powering all that. And by connecting a single cable, you get both power for a laptop and data, all the peripherals. Thunderbolt is superior for this but USB can work for anything that can be made as a USB device. You take up only one port on a laptop and you can keep a charger in a bag.
Yes, USB4 can be used to connect e.g. a drawing tablet to a desktop with a single cable. Assuming it can fit within a 100 W budget. But your computer has to be able to supply that much power on an USB port. Technically, USB allows it. But the motherboard manufacturer has to implement it. And similarly, tablet's manufacturer has to build it so it supports USB PD. The thing here is that they can't assume a computer will be able to supply enough power so there has to be an alternate means of powering it and so they might not bother with USB PD on the video/ data port at all (especially if only a few computers can supply enough power). If it's USB4, I think USB + video on one cable is given. The potential complication here is that USB-C is not that common on desktops and that they will probably want backward compatibility and some flexibility. Another complication is that video output on a desktop is often on a video card. You have to get video and USB on the same port, not to mention PCIe for Thunderbolt. This is easier in a laptop with its higher integration.
a) But that's the point, that in theory it should only require one port and one cable, at least if the technology improved enough.
b-c) I realize all that, and realize my example is a pipe dream at the moment, but I'm hopeful that with an increase in the capabilities of USB4 and in other technologies, such as power consumption of computer components and displays, that it will be not only possible, but a widespread capability. Technically, it should be possible now, since there are extremely low-power (1W) displays (granted I don't think there are any touch displays that low-power, but probably not far off). And even if not with a laptop, a desktop should be able to handle it quite well. Anyways, the point isn't necessarily what is currently possible, but what
could be possible with some more advancement, and the decision by engineers to add the functionality. I'm just hoping it happens.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 11, 2021, 19:42:38
Quote from: t4n0n on May 11, 2021, 14:22:49
Accomodating GPUs that were designed for a desktop environment immediately introduces two constraints that cripple the original premise: a bulky form factor that is not amenable to portability and the requirement for mains power.
A significant problem is that a GPU can require a lot of power. A laptop would have to get it from somewhere. And it gets only worse as a laptop (and its battery) gets smaller. You can't expect a laptop that was never designed to have a dGPU to power a dGPU. Even if the box is built around a mobile chip. Even a measly 65 W mobile chip is too much for a typical ultrabook.
I agree, a bus powered solution wouldn't work. I was thinking more along the lines of an eGPU with its own power source, namely a sizeable battery and the additional possibility of DC power from a plug.
The basic premise of the idea is to take the GPU out of the gaming laptop and put it in a self contained peripheral device that has its own power and thermal solution. In doing so, you not only expand the scope of what the graphics processor can achieve by having its own dedicated cooling and power, but also remove the thermal and power load on the laptop - basically, both devices are able to operate more effectively.
And when you don't have the need for dedicated graphics, your laptop has longer battery life and higher/longer boost clocks. You could also allow the eGPU to act as a portable power bank, to charge the laptop.l
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. As this becomes more common/popular, and as internet connections become faster and more ubiquitous, the need for a gaming laptop will decrease and, most likely, so will the demand. So not only does that mean this may all be a moot point in the near future, but that it's less likely manufacturers are going to want to invest in developing eGPU technology right at a time that it's going to be more-or-less made obsolete.
Quote from: vertigo on May 12, 2021, 16:03:42
a) But that's the point, that in theory it should only require one port and one cable, at least if the technology improved enough.
b-c) I realize all that, and realize my example is a pipe dream at the moment, but I'm hopeful that with an increase in the capabilities of USB4 and in other technologies...
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.
Quote from: vertigo on May 13, 2021, 01:19:27
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).
Quote from: _MT_ on May 13, 2021, 09:17:13
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.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 13, 2021, 09:33:39
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.
Quote from: vertigo on May 13, 2021, 17:51:38
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.
Quote from: vertigo on May 13, 2021, 17:54:39
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.
Quote from: _MT_ on May 14, 2021, 11:51:57
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.
Quote from: vertigo on May 14, 2021, 16:39:28
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.