Food for thought: The future of computing is off-site rendering

[Donut417]

21 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

you have to remember that not everyone has the internet speeds like you guys do in the US. I'm stuck with 7mbps down and like 0.5mbps up on a good day and likely wont see any improvement in many years.

A vast majority of America is stuck on 3 Mbps DSL. The only places that have good service are cities. But you got these people who wants property and buy in a rural area. Then bitch when the local cable company wont wire them up and they have to pay $60 USD a month of 3 Mbps DSL. This is the reason I will only live in the city. 

[suchamoneypit]

3 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

This post reads like a sales pitch or an ad...

 

 

you have to remember that not everyone has the internet speeds like you guys do in the US. I'm stuck with 7mbps down and like 0.5mbps up on a good day and likely wont see any improvement in many years.

Sales pitch?  Its called persuasive writing.

 

Did you read my entire post, I pointed out two facts specifically to counter-claim what you just argued. One is this isn't a solution for everyone always because not everyone has /will good internet, and companies would want data kept private, but also pointed out the first of those issues will be solved in 20-40 years.

 

I also pointed out how SpaceX is currently building and testing an entirely new network of satellites to provide fast internet to anyone anywhere in the world, they are even making their own routing protocol Starlink to support this and it supports encryption at firmware level. In 6 years SpaceX went from having not landed a rocket, to today they have successfully sent and landed rockets dozens of times. They just launched 2 satellites for this new project with the internet last week, It'll take them a few years to get this thing running I guarantee it, and if it does work, then you solved your internet bandwidth problem for the majority of people in a handful of years, nevermind my 20-40 year prediction.

 

Think of where we were tech wise 10 years ago. Seeing the tech I just pointed out, I think it would be awfully naive and shortsighted to think off-site rendering will not be a big factor of the future computing world.

[dizmo]

On 2/24/2018 at 9:16 PM, suchamoneypit said:

Oil companies are losing and will lose a ton of money from renewable energy becoming commonplace.

 

Does that stop renewable energy from becoming the majority energy supplier?

It has for how many decades? 

Did you know they had electric cars in the early 20th century? Ever wonder why they didn't take off? Big oil. Though tbh I don't even know why you brought that up. 

[suchamoneypit]

7 minutes ago, dizmo said:

It has for how many decades? 

Did you know they had electric cars in the early 20th century? Ever wonder why they didn't take off? Big oil. Though tbh I don't even know why you brought that up. 

Electric cars were not as efficient as gasoline cars in the 20th century; the tech wasn't advanced enough, and now with the advent of lithium ion batteries it is now possible for a practical electric vehicle that can compete with a gasoline one.

 

I brought it up because you said it won't happen because some companies will loose money. My point is when has a company losing money ever been a hindrance to new technology coming out. Im comparing it to the global shift away from oil and the move to renewables. Many very wealthy and very large corporations would lose a lot of money from this, but its still gonna happen whether they like it or not, because thats the new(and better) technology.

[nekogod]

1 hour ago, suchamoneypit said:

My point is when has a company losing money ever been a hindrance to new technology coming out.

But that's demonstrably untrue.

 

Oil companies in the US have been hindering renewable power for decades. The US could have been running on pure solar/wind or even nuclear(not renewable but much much cleaner than coal or oil or gas) now for easily 20 years but has barely scratched the surface because of big oil companies.

[Sakkura]

If we all keep playing games on flat screens, cloud gaming may be a technical inevitability. That's how John Carmack describes it.

 

However... if/when VR and AR take off, the latency requirements will get an order of magnitude stricter, and that will necessitate local rendering.

[GoldenLag]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

If we all keep playing games on flat screens, cloud gaming may be a technical inevitability. That's how John Carmack describes it.

 

However... if/when VR and AR take off, the latency requirements will get an order of magnitude stricter, and that will necessitate local rendering.

Cloud video rendering is highly likely. There will allways be entusiast who want very low latency. Using cloud to render or compute large files is not restricted by latency and only by read/write speeds and latency 

[asus killer]

1. i like it

2. i also think it will be the future

3. none of the arguments presented convince me it's not going to happen

4. Privacy concerns on nvidia now or steam isn't it the same thing?

[Dabombinable]

On 2/25/2018 at 12:40 PM, Enderman said:

People still use local storage instead of cloud storage.

Sometimes it just feels better to have control of everything yourself and offline if necessary.

Also the lowest possible transfer latency would still be limited by optical and the speed of light, so even if you have the best internet connection possible it will always be lower latency to run programs on your own computer.

 

I'm sure most people will be fine with cloud computing or gaming but there will always be some enthusiasts that prefer having their own hardware.

Performance will get cheaper over time too, just like cell phones now are more powerful than million dollar supercomputers from not long ago.

For a lot of people in Australia at least doing any sort of cloud computing just isn't viable, not when our FTTP NBN got shackled to Telstra's decaying copper network and changed to the inferior + asymetric FTTN (pretty much the fibre optic cables are now an extension cord for the exchange so it slows down further out).

[Syntaxvgm]

14 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

This post reads like a sales pitch or an ad...

 

 

you have to remember that not everyone has the internet speeds like you guys do in the US. I'm stuck with 7mbps down and like 0.5mbps up on a good day and likely wont see any improvement in many years.

I think you're mistaken about US internet. I have 100/100 Semitic, and can get up to 2 gigabit. Just slighty south of me you can't get a single megabit down most days, and have ping rates that exceed a second often causing a lot of things to count you disconnected before a page can load. It really varies place to place, and south of me is likely to not see an infrastructure upgrade anytime soon, not worth it for anyone involved, no real competition. My type of connection is really in the minority, and even in big cities often you have crap options and bandwidth caps.

[dizmo]

9 hours ago, suchamoneypit said:

Electric cars were not as efficient as gasoline cars in the 20th century; the tech wasn't advanced enough, and now with the advent of lithium ion batteries it is now possible for a practical electric vehicle that can compete with a gasoline one.

 

I brought it up because you said it won't happen because some companies will loose money. My point is when has a company losing money ever been a hindrance to new technology coming out. Im comparing it to the global shift away from oil and the move to renewables. Many very wealthy and very large corporations would lose a lot of money from this, but its still gonna happen whether they like it or not, because thats the new(and better) technology.

Three examples:

1. Improved fuel efficiency; A Saudi company recently invested a very small amount ($9 million) into making a truck engine that can get 45 miles to the gallon. Why? Because they're trying to veer away from oil and to other areas. This advancement could easily have been done sooner, but since oil was still in high demand, why bother?
2. Canon - They could easily release cameras significantly better than what's out there. Why don't they? They can milk the current market with a slow leak of improvements, and make much more money.
3. @nekogod pointed out a third.
4. Obvious bonus: Intel. Ever wonder why we were on the same core count for so long?

If you think advancement isn't hindered by corporate profits, you've got your head buried very deep in the sand.

[Mira Yurizaki]

8 hours ago, nekogod said:

Oil companies in the US have been hindering renewable power for decades. The US could have been running on pure solar/wind or even nuclear(not renewable but much much cleaner than coal or oil or gas) now for easily 20 years but has barely scratched the surface because of big oil companies.

Nuclear is an issue because of how expensive the startup costs are. Not mention the huge NIMBY factor as a result of catastrophic failures of Gen 2 reactors. I would love for us to go nuclear with Gen 3+ or Gen 4 reactors since that'll tide us over until renewables take over, but eh.

41 minutes ago, dizmo said:

1. Improved fuel efficiency; A Saudi company recently invested a very small amount ($9 million) into making a truck engine that can get 45 miles to the gallon. Why? Because they're trying to veer away from oil and to other areas. This advancement could easily have been done sooner, but since oil was still in high demand, why bother?

I find fuel efficiency a complicated subject. A base Honda Civic back in like 1995 could get up to 51 MPG highway. But a 2018 one can only get up to 42. What gives? People wanted more. And when you ask a car to do more, you lose efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised you could make a Prius look anemic if you pair up a modern econocar engine with the designs of econocars of the mid 90s.

[Jtalk4456]

On 2/24/2018 at 8:27 PM, RorzNZ said:

Its certainly better than spending $1000 just for a 1070 at this rate.

Is it though? Let's say the 1000$ you're talking about. at $25 for 20 hours of gameplay, 1000/25 = 800 hrs of gameplay for the same price. Now lets day 4 hrs a day, which is minimal for some gamers, that's 200 days. Lets say we don't play every day, maybe 5 days a week, that's 40 weeks, so 10 months, buying that graphics card will have paid itself off, and it should last another few years. The math says Nvidia Now isn't worth it, especially if you take into account the gameplay time of most gamers willing to spend 1000 on a graphics card.

[Jtalk4456]

11 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Nuclear is an issue because of how expensive the startup costs are. Not mention the huge NIMBY factor as a result of catastrophic failures of Gen 2 reactors. I would love for us to go nuclear with Gen 3+ or Gen 4 reactors since that'll tide us over until renewables take over, but eh.

I find fuel efficiency a complicated subject. A base Honda Civic back in like 1995 could get up to 51 MPG highway. But a 2018 one can only get up to 42. What gives? People wanted more. And when you ask a car to do more, you lose efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised you could make a Prius look anemic if you pair up a modern econocar engine with the designs of econocars of the mid 90s.

I went to school for renewables. To clarify, there's NO change of any energy taking over everything. We need a mix of solar wind and nuclear if we want to kill coal and oil completely. 

[Guest The Viking]

4 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

I went to school for renewables. To clarify, there's NO change of any energy taking over everything. We need a mix of solar wind and nuclear if we want to kill coal and oil completely. 

let's see how ITER does...

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Is it though? Let's say the 1000$ you're talking about. at $25 for 20 hours of gameplay, 1000/25 = 800 hrs of gameplay for the same price. Now lets day 4 hrs a day, which is minimal for some gamers, that's 200 days. Lets say we don't play every day, maybe 5 days a week, that's 40 weeks, so 10 months, buying that graphics card will have paid itself off, and it should last another few years. The math says Nvidia Now isn't worth it, especially if you take into account the gameplay time of most gamers willing to spend 1000 on a graphics card.

A lot of people don't want a desktop. Its situational. 

[jtmoseley]

19 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

This post reads like a sales pitch or an ad...

 

 

you have to remember that not everyone has the internet speeds like you guys do in the US. I'm stuck with 7mbps down and like 0.5mbps up on a good day and likely wont see any improvement in many years.

Don't just say US, I'm in kentucky, and the internet is expensive and slow compared to the bigger cities with gigabit... I have 12 megabits/second for like 60 dollars.

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I find fuel efficiency a complicated subject. A base Honda Civic back in like 1995 could get up to 51 MPG highway. But a 2018 one can only get up to 42. What gives? People wanted more. And when you ask a car to do more, you lose efficiency. I wouldn't be surprised you could make a Prius look anemic if you pair up a modern econocar engine with the designs of econocars of the mid 90s.

A lot of that has to do with ever increasing emissions standards, and the size of the car growing; something that's more of an American issue than anything else. Asking a car to do more doesn't necessarily mean you lose efficiency; just like that truck engine they made. It effectively (nearly) triples current fuel economy numbers.

[Mira Yurizaki]

23 minutes ago, dizmo said:

A lot of that has to do with ever increasing emissions standards, and the size of the car growing; something that's more of an American issue than anything else. Asking a car to do more doesn't necessarily mean you lose efficiency; just like that truck engine they made. It effectively (nearly) triples current fuel economy numbers.

While the car series I picked grew in size, I'll go look at another one that more or less replaced it: the Honda Fit. Compared to the 1995 Civic at its best fuel economy wise, the Fit is still 10% heavier and 20% worse in fuel economy. However, the Fit's engine (it doesn't seem to matter which configuration save for the sporty package) produces ~20 more HP. Why does a car that's basically in the same category need more power?

 

I mean, the example you posed may just be a case of malignant stagnation, but I don't think increasing fuel efficiency is something that companies are just sitting on because there's no reason to pull it out.

[Donut417]

13 hours ago, nekogod said:

But that's demonstrably untrue.

 

Oil companies in the US have been hindering renewable power for decades. The US could have been running on pure solar/wind or even nuclear(not renewable but much much cleaner than coal or oil or gas) now for easily 20 years but has barely scratched the surface because of big oil companies.

While I would agree that the oil companies have hinder some things. For example in the 90s California required GM to build the EV1. GM didnt want to build it and the oil companies didnt want it to exist. The fact is the car would have had a very low range, so I dont think consumers would have bought it. The fact is, technology just wasn't their at the time to make an electric car viable to the masses. Even today, they are not as viable due to very little places to charge the car. Now if the EV1 was able to hold its own, like the electric cars now days can, then it would have probably survived. The fact is at the time electric cars could not compete with the lower cost gas powered cars. 

 

20 years ago Solar and Wind power were much more expensive. Energy companies will go with the cheapest solution, and that also offers consumers the cheapest prices. I watched a video on Facebook with Bill Nye last year some time. He showed data that solar and wind have come down to the prices of coal and natural gas. Which means, now solar and wind are a more viable energy source. On top of the fact, its an energy source that consumers can buy themselves. Which is nice when you have a shit power grid like we have here in the US. 

 

As far as Nuclear energy goes. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are good reason not to use current designed Nuclear tech. You also add that the waste from these plants can be turned in to Nuclear weapons, another good reason not to rely on them for energy. The US has enough nukes to kill us all 4 times. We dont exactly need more of these weapons. Now if they ever get the Thorium based reactors working then I would say attitudes towards Nuclear energy would change. As they would have a lower risks, product lower amount of radiation and the spent material cant be turned in to weapons. 

 

While Ill agree that the oil companies are greedy bastards. The tech will always come out when its viable. Remember when it comes to Energy many of these technologies like coal and natural gas have been around for like ever. They are proven technologies. The new stuff has to prove itself. While some times that can be hard, they have to find a way to compete. 

[Jtalk4456]

gaming laptop still amounts to the same argument. My point wasn't desktop vs laptop, the point was renting vs buying. The math still favors buying by a long shot

[dizmo]

19 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

While the car series I picked grew in size, I'll go look at another one that more or less replaced it: the Honda Fit. Compared to the 1995 Civic at its best fuel economy wise, the Fit is still 10% heavier and 20% worse in fuel economy. However, the Fit's engine (it doesn't seem to matter which configuration save for the sporty package) produces ~20 more HP. Why does a car that's basically in the same category need more power?

 

I mean, the example you posed may just be a case of malignant stagnation, but I don't think increasing fuel efficiency is something that companies are just sitting on because there's no reason to pull it out.

I do. They have no real reason to invest huge amounts of money into making a more fuel efficient engine.

Is the Fit newer? That again comes down to emissions standards.

More power = more interest = more sales. People are drawn to things with higher numbers as they're seen as "better."

[Donut417]

3 minutes ago, dizmo said:

They have no real reason to invest huge amounts of money into making a more fuel efficient engine.

The government doesn't only dictate emissions to an extent they also dictate fuel economy. Also consumer demand is a big reason to invest in better fuel economy. But, that really only play in to effect when gas prices skyrocket due to OPEC being OPEC and cutting production to raise the price of oil. OR a refinery here in the US "mysteriously" has some issues. 

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

The government doesn't only dictate emissions to an extent they also dictate fuel economy. Also consumer demand is a big reason to invest in better fuel economy. But, that really only play in to effect when gas prices skyrocket due to OPEC being OPEC and cutting production to raise the price of oil. OR a refinery here in the US "mysteriously" has some issues. 

Exactly. Can't remember which one, but there was an Arab country that was dumping as much of it's oil as it can while prices are high and demand is there, because it knows the future is coming and soon oil won't be nearly as sought after as it is now.

I feel sorry for the next generation or two. There's a brilliant future approaching, but the extreme taxation and burden is going to be placed on them to get there.

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Exactly. Can't remember which one, but there was an Arab country that was dumping as much of it's oil as it can while prices are high and demand is there, because it knows the future is coming and soon oil won't be nearly as sought after as it is now.

I feel sorry for the next generation or two. There's a brilliant future approaching, but the extreme taxation and burden is going to be placed on them to get there.

I dont see demand going down any time soon. While the US might be the largest user, China cant be far behind us. I think its going to be another decade before electric cars really start doing something, or hopefully we will have the hydrogen fuel cell by then. Even then, it all comes down to China and the developing world. When they start investing in new energy tech then that will be the end of oil.