Game Streaming's Dirty Secret

[inmediovirtus]

Summary

 Game streaming is a lot less taxing on your energy bill than the (more expensive) alternative of high end graphics cards and modern hardware, however a new study from Lancaster university shows the total cost of running and streaming the content could put Gaming's carbon emissions up by as much as 30%

 

Quotes

Quote

 

For example, a 10-watt streaming device - like a media stick plugged into a TV - can use an extra 520 watts of power in the network and data centre - making the total greater than local desktop PCs, Mr Mills' team found.

In addition, a console, on average, uses 156% more energy when cloud gaming compared to local gaming - and far more than watching a film on a video stream.

They estimate roughly 300 watts of power is used in the data centre, and about 182 watts are spent on all the internet infrastructure in the middle - for every connected gamer.

 

"Cloud-based gaming is by far the most energy-intensive form of gaming via the internet," the team concluded.

 

Fair weather

There are arguments in favour of cloud gaming, however.

 

Gamers could use lower-powered, more energy-efficient devices at home, since all the heavy lifting is done in a data centre. And fewer consoles being manufactured means fewer in landfill at the end of their useful lives.

 

There are also no discs to make, and the cost of transporting them to physical stores vanishes.

 

Is your Netflix habit bad for the environment?

Is 30 minutes of Netflix the same as driving four miles?

Digital game downloads have already been replacing physical copies over time - but they have some of the same problems as streaming.

 

"Download sizes actually give streaming a run for its money," Mr Hazas says.

 

Some popular titles are more than 100 gigabytes in size - a long and power-hungry download process that streaming does not require.

 

At lower resolutions "it might be in some cases actually be better to stream", he adds.

 

My thoughts

 Whilst I'm not so sure about the assumptions they've made about how much power home gaming takes (spectre of Ampere making my psu rattle as it is) I was surprised just how much power it takes to run the internet stream - even after the game has actually been 'played' on the server hardware.

 

Sources

BBC Article

 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53838645

Study

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3401335.3401366

[RejZoR]

I love it how they quickly jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon for gaming and streaming entertainment, but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given. And those ate gigawatts if not terawatts of power globally. Where were environmentalists then?

[Taf the Ghost]

This feels like a study commissioned by a publisher that doesn't want to allow Game Streaming.

[Spotty]

14 minutes ago, inmediovirtus said:

Some popular titles are more than 100 gigabytes in size - a long and power-hungry download process that streaming does not require.

So what they're saying is we should all upgrade to gigabit internet and Gen4 NVMe SSDs to make game downloads quicker?

[Wh0_Am_1]

20 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I love it how they quickly jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon for gaming and streaming entertainment, but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given. And those ate gigawatts if not terawatts of power globally. Where were environmentalists then?

They were their we just did not care. (super quick search could not find the video I wanted but I guess it works....)

 

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

40 minutes ago, Spotty said:

So what they're saying is we should all upgrade to gigabit internet and Gen4 NVMe SSDs to make game downloads quicker?

either that or do what i do which is leave my computer powered up overnight downloading a large game, but that's not good for the environment so... 

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

So what they're saying is we should all upgrade to gigabit internet and Gen4 NVMe SSDs to make game downloads quicker?

 No, I think what they're saying is that PCs and game consoles should be attached to human hamster wheels to generate clean energy and keep gamers physically in shape.

[Doobeedoo]

Um that's quite random take. 

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I love it how they quickly jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon for gaming and streaming entertainment, but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given. And those ate gigawatts if not terawatts of power globally. Where were environmentalists then?

https://news.bitcoin.com/the-bitcoin-network-now-consumes-7-nuclear-plants-worth-of-power/

[bcredeur97]

this doesn't speak about how things are getting more efifcient overtime. 

I mean CPU's have had massive efficiency improvements already (AMD ones anyway). GPU's will be next I bet.

[poochyena]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given.

Bruh, that was discussed EVERYWHERE during the mining craze. Idk how you could have missed it.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bitcoin+mining+enviroment

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I love it how they quickly jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon for gaming and streaming entertainment, but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given. And those ate gigawatts if not terawatts of power globally. Where were environmentalists then?

More to the point, the difference for the user is about $6 on their machine if they are gaming most days rather than say streaming. That is personal experience. The most energy-sucking device in my apartment is the fridge, and if I were to unplug it, I'd probably save $10/mo. 

 

At any rate, all it does is push the energy use from the end user to the data center, and data centers are notoriously less energy efficient due to the miles of wiring, UPS systems, fans, air conditioning, and so forth needed. In a data center you gain efficiency by using things like the Dell MX7000 and share a lot of the power sucking parts to gain space efficiency as a primary focus and energy second.

 

Like I have never seen the inside of google or amazon, but I'm pretty confident that they're not using high end, high density solutions simply because they are expensive. I remember at one point back in the early 2000's there was a photo of "google search"'s equipment and it was just custom built off-the-shelf hardware with no chassis.

 

[jagdtigger]

*yawn* Just lock up those "green" idiots and throw the key away already. They always whine pretty much about anything but at the same time they dont do any real work....

[Trik'Stari]

Yeah don't care. I'm not switching to game streaming, and not getting rid of my high end gaming PC.

 

Game streaming needs to die in a fire, for so many reasons.

[Dabombinable]

For consoles they must be using the PS4 slim and XboneS...or the Switch. Otherwise we're talking nearly 100W just watching Netflix, let alone game streaming (my PS4 is a pig).

[Monkey Dust]

Since we're taking electricity we already have proven technologies to decarbonize it, it's not aviation or shipping.

 

You'd think given how all the big tech companies are based in California, and that California is catching fire with increasing frequency and severity, they'd be a bit more on top of decarbonizing their operation.   

[WereCat]

Have they took into account that I set a -0.05V offset on my CPU to reduce emissions?

[Kisai]

48 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

Since we're taking electricity we already have proven technologies to decarbonize it, it's not aviation or shipping.

 

You'd think given how all the big tech companies are based in California, and that California is catching fire with increasing frequency and severity, they'd be a bit more on top of decarbonizing their operation.   

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

There is no connection between "green" energy use, and places catching fire. The reason for forest fires is always:

a) Lightning, which is a rare, but always guaranteed forest fire starter

b) Smokers, particularly cigar and cigarette smokers who throw their butts everywhere

c) People who go camping and don't put out their campfires

d) Cars/Trucks/Motorbikes/ATV's/etc catching underbrush on fire.

 

But specific to California, Arizona and Nevada

 

e) People geoengineered the environment.

 

If water wasn't brought into these regions to grow food, point blank the US would lose a lot of their tropical/sub-tropical produce. Though you know what all the water is going to waste on? Almonds. For Almond "milk", one of the least efficient uses for land next to cattle.

 

You know what grows naturally in the pacific west coast? Apples. Berries. Fruit like Pears, Apricots, Peaches, Plums, Grapes, Strawberries, Raspberries, Cranberries, etc. But no, these usually only grow in the wetter parts like Oregon and Washington.

 

What has been to blame in the recent past for wildfires are wind storms knocking out power lines and catching the actual grass beneath them on fire. 

 

None of this has anything to do with carbon or energy production. If you want less wildfires in California, you pretty much have to companies like PG&E to bury their lines, or remove all plant life within 100ft of power lines. I'm sure homeowners will so LOVE to pay for that. Rather power companies and customers are too cheap, and would rather take their chances. 

 

This is typically why new buildings put the power lines underground unless it's below sea level. Other areas like Washington state and British Columbia are also in the same Pacific Coast climate region, and have equally devastating fires.  

 

The only reason fires are getting worse is because fire control measures are often just straight up ignored, rather than proactively taken.

 

Yes the climate does play into it, but you can not blame California for having fires any more than you can blame Florida for having Hurricanes. These are environmental phenomena that are fueled by warmer climate, and the entire dang world needs to come together to even move the dial, and we lost that fight in the 80's already. https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-warning-1981-tv-documentary-warned-climate-change

 

We were warned, and we ignored it.

 

[DeScruff]

11 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I love it how they quickly jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon for gaming and streaming entertainment, but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given. And those ate gigawatts if not terawatts of power globally. Where were environmentalists then?

The thing I hate about cryptocurrency, Its calculating things that serves no practical, or logical purpose. Its just Information that literally has 0 value if the power goes out.
If it was calculating... I dunno simulations on cancer or quantum physics, something that will benefit us. - Hell even calculating weather pasterns. At least that is something usable.

Also lets not forget the major E-Waste mining crypto creates, specially with parts and electronics that can't be used for anything but mining crypto.

[Bombastinator]

12 hours ago, inmediovirtus said:

Summary

 Game streaming is a lot less taxing on your energy bill than the (more expensive) alternative of high end graphics cards and modern hardware, however a new study from Lancaster university shows the total cost of running and streaming the content could put Gaming's carbon emissions up by as much as 30%

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

 Whilst I'm not so sure about the assumptions they've made about how much power home gaming takes (spectre of Ampere making my psu rattle as it is) I was surprised just how much power it takes to run the internet stream - even after the game has actually been 'played' on the server hardware.

 

Sources

BBC Article

 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53838645

Study

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3401335.3401366

Phrases like “how?” Come to mind.  Server farms are 50% less efficient electrically than home PCs?  The places that measure electricity so hard they buy new chips just because they’re more electrically efficient care so little they use 50% more juice. This smells more like a measurement error than anything else.  

[Kisai]

26 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Phrases like “how?” Come to mind.  Server farms are 50% less efficient electrically than home PCs?  The places that measure electricity so hard they buy new chips just because they’re more electrically efficient care so little they use 50% more juice. This smells more like a measurement error than anything else.  

Depends on the source of energy.

 

Hydroelectric: zero, however you do need water, and water that isn't used for energy or irrigation still needs to flow for fish to spawn.

Coal: Did you know you need a 2.4km long train carrying coal to fuel a coal plant? Per day.

 

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references

Quote

Emission Factor

1,558.8 lbs CO₂/MWh × (4.536 × 10^-4 metric tons/lb) × 0.001 MWh/kWh = 7.07 × 10^-4 metric tons CO₂/kWh
(AVERT, U.S. national weighted average CO₂ marginal emission rate, year 2018 data)

Notes:

• This calculation does not include any greenhouse gases other than CO₂.
• This calculation includes line losses.
• Regional marginal emission rates are also available on the AVERT web page.

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

14 hours ago, Spotty said:

So what they're saying is we should all upgrade to gigabit internet and Gen4 NVMe SSDs to make game downloads quicker?

I mean I could have gigabit, but I don’t think 100ish dollars is worth it. I’ll stick with my 100mb

[JustAnotherOverClocker]

14 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I love it how they quickly jump on the carbon footprint bandwagon for gaming and streaming entertainment, but when half of the world was literally running graphic cards to generate money with GPU mining farms, no fucks were given. And those ate gigawatts if not terawatts of power globally. Where were environmentalists then?

That's sorta a bad argument. I take that back. It's a TERRIBLE argument. It's a whataboutism.

 

"You hate this thing because its bad for the environment? Well... Why didn't you hate this other thing that happened earlier that also hurts the environment!"

 

Truth is both are bad, so is the e-waste from the mining cards (something Linus talked about). A lot of environmentalism has been pushed aside in the recent months, but the point of a lot of the showboating that you see (Greta Thunberg taking a boat across the Atlantic) is to show how inconvenient being environmentally low impact is, and that NEEDs to change if we want to make any progress.

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Depends on the source of energy.

 

Hydroelectric: zero, however you do need water, and water that isn't used for energy or irrigation still needs to flow for fish to spawn.

Coal: Did you know you need a 2.4km long train carrying coal to fuel a coal plant? Per day.

 

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and-references

 

Varying the source of energy could be a measurement error.  People like to make money with businesses.  Server farms are businesses server farms use a lot of electricity and create a lot of heat.  Therefore they tend to be placed A; where electricity is cheap, and B where cooling is cheap.  This is why you see server farms in weird places like next to thermal electric stations in Greenland.   Businesses tend to love efficiency because efficiency is cheap.  Sometimes this is bad for the ebvironment like pumping pcbs into a river, but sometimes when the waste products are not especially toxic it is actually  better.  Homeowners care more about being close to work.  They tend to live in places where electricity is expensive.  This 50% thing?  It seems a bit much. 10% I might have bought, but 50% is crazy.   If it cost 50% more to do cloud computing no one would do it.  I find the thing suspicious.  It’s almost certainly very very narrowly right if things are measured in certain ways but the number is so very wacky I want to know what those ways are. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Bombastinator

[RejZoR]

3 hours ago, JustAnotherOverClocker said:

That's sorta a bad argument. I take that back. It's a TERRIBLE argument. It's a whataboutism.

 

"You hate this thing because its bad for the environment? Well... Why didn't you hate this other thing that happened earlier that also hurts the environment!"

 

Truth is both are bad, so is the e-waste from the mining cards (something Linus talked about). A lot of environmentalism has been pushed aside in the recent months, but the point of a lot of the showboating that you see (Greta Thunberg taking a boat across the Atlantic) is to show how inconvenient being environmentally low impact is, and that NEEDs to change if we want to make any progress.

 

 

Bullshit. If we're bitching about gaming and streaming, then we should also bitch about EVERY shape or form of entertainment that uses any kind of electricity to work. Oh, racing cars? Pollution and global warming. TV? Muh electricity. Radio? Muh electricity. Newsflash, our world runs on electricity. Hell, forums and "social media" to bitch on about global warming runs on electricity and produces fuck ton of heat. Pick all of them. Or none. Picking on games and gamers exclusively is the most fucking boomer thing possible and to this date I NEVER used boomer thing to bitch about something.