1 edit | Bad Math? Let's see if I can make a complete idiot out of myself here:
I currently play online games at 1920x1200, 32bits/pixel, 60FPS.
OK
If this service wants to give me the same experience with the remote servers doing all of the rendering, then logically their service would be sending me the finished frames to display on my screen, right?
So a single frame at 1920x1200 is about 2.3 million individual pixels, and assuming 32bit color, that's about 73.7 million bits per frame. Take that to 60 frames per second, and you're looking at 4.4 billion bits per second.
Unless I'm completely screwing something up, that means a constant data stream of over 4 gigabits per second for their service to give a comparable experience to my home-rendered games.
Surely they've got some kind of wicked compression schemes, so that figure is high, but still...
Ahh, here we go:
If you're hooked on your quad-core, dual-GPU gaming rig running on a 30-inch, 2560x1600 display, then OnLive is not likely to be your cup of tea.
Obviously...
--
Burrow owl...burrow owl... |
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| You're probably not far off... GPUs generally decompress "on the fly" so that you get those glorious full-frames of color drenched goodness at high resolution. Input is usually compressed textures... Perhaps they'll actually have a GPU in the box, similar to an nVidia ION that's cheap enough to mass produce and give away, but powerful enough to render playable framerates at something above 800x600  |
