|
Hey all,
so I'm looking to buy a gaming system over the summer for Crisis and Witcher and what not.
I'm thinking about getting a gaming desktop cause they're more powerful and cheaper. but since I hardly am ever home, I want to have a laptop too that can use remote desktop to connect to my desktop. so basically, i want to combine the power and cheapness of a desktop with the portability of a laptop.
does anyone here have any idea of how do-able this is?
|
I don't know if I'm understanding properly - are you saying you want to use your desktop's processing power on a laptop - like, the desktop would stream the game to your laptop over the Internet?
If so, it's impossible with current technology. "Remote desktop" has very limited bandwidth, especially over the internet. Even if you were directly connected to your desktop with a network cable, the data can't go through the cable fast enough to provide a decent gaming experience.
|
You will not be able to game through remote desktop. However, you might want to check out OnLive, which is actually pretty handy for gaming on limited platforms (notebooks/netbooks/etc). You can download it free and play around with spectating others or playing demos (before choosing whether or not to purchase or rent games). I played some games with it on my netbook a while back and it ran just fine.
http://www.onlive.com/
|
I thought of mentioning OnLive too but it's pretty unimpressive so far... I can't imagine they'll be staying in business with 92 games, a vast majority of which are small indy games or flat out bad ones.
Plus it does require a lot of bandwidth and not many public networks offer that.
The world isn't ready for cloud gaming IMO
|
I haven't had real problems with onlive's bandwidth requirements, and I used it in airports/hotels, but I might have just been lucky.
And no, OnLive isn't going to replace the quality of a gaming rig (we're still a few years away from that), but its certainly nice for people who either have slow/old machines, or want to game on the go with laptops/netbooks. Overall I wasn't disappointed with it, and spectating is a lot of fun.
|
This is kind of off topic but I just went around and jerked around with OnLive's free trial and it downloaded 500-600 KB/sec on menu and 700 KB/sec in a game...
I know you guys are in the US so bandwidth limits aren't as much of a big deal but omg.
|
For 720p you're looking at around 2-3Mbit/sec min (up to 5-6Mbit). Thats the trade off with not having to install (or run) the game locally. Can't really have it both ways.
It will scale the bandwidth usage (and thus quality) higher/lower depending on what your connection allows.
|
On May 22 2011 13:33 moopie wrote: For 720p you're looking at around 2-3Mbit/sec min (up to 5-6Mbit). Thats the trade off with not having to install (or run) the game locally. Can't really have it both ways.
It will scale the bandwidth usage (and thus quality) higher/lower depending on what your connection allows. Wish it'd let me pick so I could test it. I have a 30 mbps connection so I can download at up to 4 megabytes per second, but the problem is that I'm very limited (120gb and I download a lot of torrents).
Couple years down the line, maybe Canada will get unlimited gigabit lines, like 10 years after Somalia does.
|
On May 22 2011 13:59 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2011 13:33 moopie wrote: For 720p you're looking at around 2-3Mbit/sec min (up to 5-6Mbit). Thats the trade off with not having to install (or run) the game locally. Can't really have it both ways.
It will scale the bandwidth usage (and thus quality) higher/lower depending on what your connection allows. Wish it'd let me pick so I could test it. I have a 30 mbps connection so I can download at up to 4 megabytes per second, but the problem is that I'm very limited (120gb and I download a lot of torrents). Couple years down the line, maybe Canada will get unlimited gigabit lines, like 10 years after Somalia does.
Quoted for the freaking TRUTH.
Other than that to the OP: I don't think its quite possible to do that yet. However, building a desktop computer is quite fine, finding an affordable laptop is a bit harder. If it holds up that you almost always game on while on the move, I would find just investing in a very good gaming laptop would do just the trick. Of course it's your call, I believe there are $800 laptops that can run SC2 and the like, but not sure on any of the games you mentioned.
|
|
OP here, ya.
when i go on ustream and what not, it can stream it pretty good even in full screen and see details in the games really well. if i can play with that sort of graphics detail from my laptop streaming from my desktop, then i will be quite happy.
|
We've already tried to explain it to you, it won't work well. Those streaming services have delay, ranging from a ~3 seconds to 15-20 seconds. Have you ever played with even a 1k ping latency? you won't be able to use those services to stream games to a laptop. Your options are either to get a powerful laptop and play on it (if you want good performance it will not be cheap), or use a service like OnLive.
|
On May 23 2011 06:04 moopie wrote: We've already tried to explain it to you, it won't work well. Those streaming services have delay, ranging from a ~3 seconds to 15-20 seconds. Have you ever played with even a 1k ping latency? you won't be able to use those services to stream games to a laptop. Your options are either to get a powerful laptop and play on it (if you want good performance it will not be cheap), or use a service like OnLive. Also keep in mind that, like I said, OnLive has an extremely limited selection of games. Currently, they're sitting at 92, and it doesn't have The Witcher for instance. In fact, it doesn't have much. Also there's some games that you can't even buy - you have to "rent" them for like 5 days at a time and then they expire.
If you wanted to try to do it yourself (impossible), you would need an extremely powerful workstation able to encode video really, really fast. Currently, this would also require software which is not available at the moment. Also, you would need an extremely fast connection with a low ping with very fast upload speeds - pretty much industrial level. You would also need a solid connection wherever you are at any time. Wifi connections generally increase your ping - and "ping" here is not regular ping. It's input delay, which is absolutely atrocious.
Long story short, forget it for now. If you want to have any sort of decent gaming experience on a laptop, you need gaming laptop. OnLive is a very limited alternative.
|
wow, 1k latency?
that's pretty shit lol. i always thought that the latency was normal like 200 or something.
what do you guys think about this half-desktop-half-laptop thing that dell has:
http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-one-2305-amd/pd?~ck=mn&~ck=mn
it's really freaking portable like a laptop (except it doesn't have a battery, but most places i use my laptop, there's a battery outlet nearby anyways, so i'm ok with that). but since it's a desktop, it's cheap and has good specs.
is a 1024MB ATI RadeonTM HD5470 or a ATI HD4270 RadeonTM good enough for playing games on maxed out quality? like, i wanna play diablo 3 with decent quality, and witcher 2 and stuff. also, it comes with 4 gig ram, but should i get 6 or 8? that jacks up the price enormously, probably because it's specialized ram that can fit into that thing...
|
I would definitely run that question in the tech support section of the forum, they have good people who would be able to help you. I would definitely not buy that one right now, as I don't think those video cards are any good at all. They would definitely have a very hard time running The Witcher 2 (it might be unplayable). It might run Diablo 3 on low.
As for the ram, 4gb is more than enough for gaming or anything you'll do on a laptop. Don't bother getting more.
Here's some info about the 5470. http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5470.23698.0.html
|
oh shoot, so those graphics cards aren't good to play games?
|
On May 23 2011 16:22 LoneWolf.Alpha wrote:oh shoot, so those graphics cards aren't good to play games? Definitely not
|
|
|
|