GeForcealypse Now, Xbox Series X specs, NZXT H1, Q&A - The Full Nerd ep. 127
video description
Date: 2022-03-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
JoeyTheSaint
So there are a _lot_ of things I find pretty weird about the Stadia vs GFN debate, and Brad's and Adam's take on it here.
First off; I've tried GFN, and it _is_ pretty good. So I'm not -hating- on it. In fact I've actually signed up as a -founder- and have 3 months free founders sub right now. Why wouldn't I? It's free! And I have a Shield TV, which makes GFN even better! But the fact that it's free, does also actually make the -1 mill subs already-, not all that impressive. Stadia actually charged like 130USD/EUR/GBP for their first customers, as you needed to buy the Founders, or Premiere edition to get in at all, and they actually sold out the Founders edition in -record time- (granted, that did include a bit of HW. I believe the number of subs has been estimated at -120k.
But to me one of the the weirdest things perhaps, is that this is actually more like a reverse PC vs Console debate. As GFN is trying to be a PC in the cloud, whilst Stadia is trying to be a _console_ in the cloud. -Reverse-, as it's _Stadia_ that offers -master race- performance with up to 4K-60fps with HDR, whilst GFN stops at just 1080p. But also, whilst Stadia even in their commercials flicks a _console_ next to the TV away, to replace it for 4K TV gaming. Adam points out that GFN is great, because he can play his games on a _phone! _ (Which by the way, you can on Stadia as well now, provided you have a supported phone, which I believe Adam's Razor phone is.
But this does still, in a way, illustrate that comparing GFN and Stadia, is a bit to much like comparing apples and oranges.
The next thing I'd like to point out, is that GFN's free tier subscription, while it's _great_ for consumers, as we get to _try_ the service before we buy it. Is actually quite useless if you then plan to use the service _regularly. _ There are a few things Brad and Adam forgot to mention, if they were aware of them. Like, in that free hour before you need to re-queue, you also have to navigate to the game you wan't to play within Steam for example, and then -install- the game on the instance you now control. So, like when I tried Destiny 2, granted, that was actually an almost _immediate_ install, but for Borderlands, I actually had to wait close to 5 minutes of the 60 available on the free tier, before the game was -downloaded-. I'd say I got about 45-50 minutes of _actual_ playtime in that hour. And I don't know how long I waited to get an instance before that. What I do know, is that we certainly have no idea how much waiting there will be in the future. So all in all, I'd argue that _most_ users who will plan to use this regularly, will _-have-_ to go for a paid subscription.
Which makes it pretty unfair to compare the service against Stadia, as if there is an actual _free_ tier of GFN that warrants comparison.
Also it should be pointed out that the 5 USD for GFN, varies with region. And that Nvidia has stated that that's an _introductory_ price, whilst declining to tell what the _actual_ price will be, and _when_ they'll start to charge it. Basically, the GFN Founders sub now, is a guarantee to get the 5 USD price per month, only for the first year. And as I said; it varies a bit with region. Whilst it's half the price of a Stadia sub in the US. In Norway, where I live, maybe Europe? A GFN sub is actually 60% of the price of a Stadia sub. Which means; for 4 EUR more a month, you get 2 games (so 2 EUR each) to play for that month, and you get to play at 4K-60fps with HDR and 5. 1 surround (well, _some_ of the games at least: P.
There's actually a ton more weird stuff here, like -everyone- on the Stadia release complained about; -But what about us who have slow internet with data caps? -. That argument is _nowhere_ to be seen for GFN. Super weird.
Then there's the idea that it's -free- content on GFN, because you already own your Steam library. Whilst access to games you've already bought is a great selling point for sure. It's not like everyones Steam library was free _to begin with, _ or the games added in the future _will_ be.
And, last point. If you have a big Steam library. What do you need GFN for? Did you buy all the games there without having a PC to run them on? Gambling that some day, some one, would rent you a PC through the cloud? Off course not! _Most_ people with a Steam library, _has_ a gaming PC already! And you know what? _IT_ can actually stream your games to your phone _without_ having to pay for GFN!
As i see it, GFN _does_ fill its niche in a pretty good manner. And Stadia, despite its rocky start. Well yeah, it doesn't really. :P But it _does_ have a niche too. And it _does_ fit for _some_ people. So again; saying GFN is _better_ than Stadia, is actually just like saying apples are better than oranges. Well, in _my_ opinion. ;)
reply
So there are a _lot_ of things I find pretty weird about the Stadia vs GFN debate, and Brad's and Adam's take on it here.
First off; I've tried GFN, and it _is_ pretty good. So I'm not -hating- on it. In fact I've actually signed up as a -founder- and have 3 months free founders sub right now. Why wouldn't I? It's free! And I have a Shield TV, which makes GFN even better! But the fact that it's free, does also actually make the -1 mill subs already-, not all that impressive. Stadia actually charged like 130USD/EUR/GBP for their first customers, as you needed to buy the Founders, or Premiere edition to get in at all, and they actually sold out the Founders edition in -record time- (granted, that did include a bit of HW. I believe the number of subs has been estimated at -120k.
But to me one of the the weirdest things perhaps, is that this is actually more like a reverse PC vs Console debate. As GFN is trying to be a PC in the cloud, whilst Stadia is trying to be a _console_ in the cloud. -Reverse-, as it's _Stadia_ that offers -master race- performance with up to 4K-60fps with HDR, whilst GFN stops at just 1080p. But also, whilst Stadia even in their commercials flicks a _console_ next to the TV away, to replace it for 4K TV gaming. Adam points out that GFN is great, because he can play his games on a _phone! _ (Which by the way, you can on Stadia as well now, provided you have a supported phone, which I believe Adam's Razor phone is.
But this does still, in a way, illustrate that comparing GFN and Stadia, is a bit to much like comparing apples and oranges.
The next thing I'd like to point out, is that GFN's free tier subscription, while it's _great_ for consumers, as we get to _try_ the service before we buy it. Is actually quite useless if you then plan to use the service _regularly. _ There are a few things Brad and Adam forgot to mention, if they were aware of them. Like, in that free hour before you need to re-queue, you also have to navigate to the game you wan't to play within Steam for example, and then -install- the game on the instance you now control. So, like when I tried Destiny 2, granted, that was actually an almost _immediate_ install, but for Borderlands, I actually had to wait close to 5 minutes of the 60 available on the free tier, before the game was -downloaded-. I'd say I got about 45-50 minutes of _actual_ playtime in that hour. And I don't know how long I waited to get an instance before that. What I do know, is that we certainly have no idea how much waiting there will be in the future. So all in all, I'd argue that _most_ users who will plan to use this regularly, will _-have-_ to go for a paid subscription.
Which makes it pretty unfair to compare the service against Stadia, as if there is an actual _free_ tier of GFN that warrants comparison.
Also it should be pointed out that the 5 USD for GFN, varies with region. And that Nvidia has stated that that's an _introductory_ price, whilst declining to tell what the _actual_ price will be, and _when_ they'll start to charge it. Basically, the GFN Founders sub now, is a guarantee to get the 5 USD price per month, only for the first year. And as I said; it varies a bit with region. Whilst it's half the price of a Stadia sub in the US. In Norway, where I live, maybe Europe? A GFN sub is actually 60% of the price of a Stadia sub. Which means; for 4 EUR more a month, you get 2 games (so 2 EUR each) to play for that month, and you get to play at 4K-60fps with HDR and 5. 1 surround (well, _some_ of the games at least: P.
There's actually a ton more weird stuff here, like -everyone- on the Stadia release complained about; -But what about us who have slow internet with data caps? -. That argument is _nowhere_ to be seen for GFN. Super weird.
Then there's the idea that it's -free- content on GFN, because you already own your Steam library. Whilst access to games you've already bought is a great selling point for sure. It's not like everyones Steam library was free _to begin with, _ or the games added in the future _will_ be.
And, last point. If you have a big Steam library. What do you need GFN for? Did you buy all the games there without having a PC to run them on? Gambling that some day, some one, would rent you a PC through the cloud? Off course not! _Most_ people with a Steam library, _has_ a gaming PC already! And you know what? _IT_ can actually stream your games to your phone _without_ having to pay for GFN!
As i see it, GFN _does_ fill its niche in a pretty good manner. And Stadia, despite its rocky start. Well yeah, it doesn't really. :P But it _does_ have a niche too. And it _does_ fit for _some_ people. So again; saying GFN is _better_ than Stadia, is actually just like saying apples are better than oranges. Well, in _my_ opinion. ;)
reply
Nocturnal101
UHM, What the Cat. Alaina and Adam role switch.
You know its weird While others are failing, GeforceNow actually isn't terrible, Stadia was just garbage from the getgo, but as I said before the major issue with streaming is you cannot overcome the ISP issue where Latency and Bandwidth aren't exactly a problem NVidia can solve and unfortunately the Government Agency in Charge the FCC went -Full Retard- on the American public.
I think Activision/Blizzard and Bethesda have streaming license deals already in play and they are weighing their options or have to deal with the legal issues, but I can see publishers getting greedy and wanting to double dip, grant it they would prefer the Stadia business model despite how anti-consumer and crappy it is. NVidia is pioneering a new way for streaming and they understand the technology where as the investors, lawyers, and business types don't understand how the tech works and they are making assumptions. Also what about Steam with Game sharing, and their local/over internet streaming? How is that any different?
I don't like to point fingers, but from what I heard R. K. was part of the major issue with AMD graphics sucking it so bad, as he believed hyping and almost bullish marketing practices overtook actual engineering priorities which lead to chips with extremely high TDPs with all show and no go, he is probably responsible for some of the worst Archs we have seen in modern graphics. I honestly think if that was the case and there is truth in that, then perhaps RDNA2 with a new team and leader may actually be able to re-engineer an Arch on 7nm that isn't aweful, I know they moved the team responsible for the TDP tuning for Ryzen and had them switch to work on BigNavi, so it is possible that the RR7 was just that much of a sucky GPU Arch that from tuning it only got 25-30% performance increase at the same TDP 12nm to 7nm shrink that is half the node size and honestly that is a bit embarrassing and shows how bad Vega really was, in reality they should have seen 50% to 70% increases. I think AMD has a bit of a challenge on their hands, 3000 Series if it is 7nmUVL the scaling with NVidia's Arch might be really good depending on how the Voltage Tune/TDP of the Chip if they keep the same envelope structure I can completely see a 3060 overtaking a 2080 or maybe even standing close to a 2080TI at least in RT fuctions, Honestly we may very well be looking at another Maxwell to Pascal leap, which is going to spell trouble if AMD releases BigNavi and it only competes with a 12nm chip.
Brad that makes perfect sense, Consoles are always budget Mainstream hardware, 7nm UVL is cheaper to make, as there are more cherry picked dies and overall the wafer is just more ideal for harvest, look at NVidia, 12nm->7nm nearly half the node lithography, if the chips are tuned in the same thermal envelope I would probably expect a 3060 to go past a 2080S in performance, remember NVidia did state they were looking to release major GPU lines now not small iterations, they want the Maxwell to Pascal leaps as they Huang said they seem to get more sales while putting in less resources, If bigNavi doesn't beat a 2080S I would actually be shocked at how AMD screwed the pooch.
NZXT H1 looks fantastic but the 1 thing on an SSF chassis that needs to be there is HDMI/DP and USB 3. 0 on the front for VR setups that way you can plug and play without keeping all the wires all over the place.
reply
UHM, What the Cat. Alaina and Adam role switch.
You know its weird While others are failing, GeforceNow actually isn't terrible, Stadia was just garbage from the getgo, but as I said before the major issue with streaming is you cannot overcome the ISP issue where Latency and Bandwidth aren't exactly a problem NVidia can solve and unfortunately the Government Agency in Charge the FCC went -Full Retard- on the American public.
I think Activision/Blizzard and Bethesda have streaming license deals already in play and they are weighing their options or have to deal with the legal issues, but I can see publishers getting greedy and wanting to double dip, grant it they would prefer the Stadia business model despite how anti-consumer and crappy it is. NVidia is pioneering a new way for streaming and they understand the technology where as the investors, lawyers, and business types don't understand how the tech works and they are making assumptions. Also what about Steam with Game sharing, and their local/over internet streaming? How is that any different?
I don't like to point fingers, but from what I heard R. K. was part of the major issue with AMD graphics sucking it so bad, as he believed hyping and almost bullish marketing practices overtook actual engineering priorities which lead to chips with extremely high TDPs with all show and no go, he is probably responsible for some of the worst Archs we have seen in modern graphics. I honestly think if that was the case and there is truth in that, then perhaps RDNA2 with a new team and leader may actually be able to re-engineer an Arch on 7nm that isn't aweful, I know they moved the team responsible for the TDP tuning for Ryzen and had them switch to work on BigNavi, so it is possible that the RR7 was just that much of a sucky GPU Arch that from tuning it only got 25-30% performance increase at the same TDP 12nm to 7nm shrink that is half the node size and honestly that is a bit embarrassing and shows how bad Vega really was, in reality they should have seen 50% to 70% increases. I think AMD has a bit of a challenge on their hands, 3000 Series if it is 7nmUVL the scaling with NVidia's Arch might be really good depending on how the Voltage Tune/TDP of the Chip if they keep the same envelope structure I can completely see a 3060 overtaking a 2080 or maybe even standing close to a 2080TI at least in RT fuctions, Honestly we may very well be looking at another Maxwell to Pascal leap, which is going to spell trouble if AMD releases BigNavi and it only competes with a 12nm chip.
Brad that makes perfect sense, Consoles are always budget Mainstream hardware, 7nm UVL is cheaper to make, as there are more cherry picked dies and overall the wafer is just more ideal for harvest, look at NVidia, 12nm->7nm nearly half the node lithography, if the chips are tuned in the same thermal envelope I would probably expect a 3060 to go past a 2080S in performance, remember NVidia did state they were looking to release major GPU lines now not small iterations, they want the Maxwell to Pascal leaps as they Huang said they seem to get more sales while putting in less resources, If bigNavi doesn't beat a 2080S I would actually be shocked at how AMD screwed the pooch.
NZXT H1 looks fantastic but the 1 thing on an SSF chassis that needs to be there is HDMI/DP and USB 3. 0 on the front for VR setups that way you can plug and play without keeping all the wires all over the place.
reply
SpartanLAW
Seriously? hello, radio sells advertising. they get more viewers with the artists music. pretty clear difference. also venues sell things make tons of money, bring increased business to the area. think a little more. the only thing nvidia gets out of it is its name being attached. they might gain some publicity for it. but i dont think this is the same as your comparison to music at all. if it was an egregious amount they are charging then i would say yes publisher should want to get a cut. but geforce now seems to be a great value right now, considering all the hardware and bandwidth nvidia are paying for.
reply
Seriously? hello, radio sells advertising. they get more viewers with the artists music. pretty clear difference. also venues sell things make tons of money, bring increased business to the area. think a little more. the only thing nvidia gets out of it is its name being attached. they might gain some publicity for it. but i dont think this is the same as your comparison to music at all. if it was an egregious amount they are charging then i would say yes publisher should want to get a cut. but geforce now seems to be a great value right now, considering all the hardware and bandwidth nvidia are paying for.
reply
theexmann
In terms of the pricing for new game consoles in today's market you need to compare it to other electronic devices users are buying. Compared to phones, $600 seems very reasonable considering what you can do with the hardware, and historically you hold on to the hardware for years unlike a $650 Apple or Samsung phone that users replace in 2-3 years and don't seem to have a problem with it. Or, they'll just rent it by paying every month in perpetuity and get a new model every two years.
reply
In terms of the pricing for new game consoles in today's market you need to compare it to other electronic devices users are buying. Compared to phones, $600 seems very reasonable considering what you can do with the hardware, and historically you hold on to the hardware for years unlike a $650 Apple or Samsung phone that users replace in 2-3 years and don't seem to have a problem with it. Or, they'll just rent it by paying every month in perpetuity and get a new model every two years.
reply
Shannon
MS have already said that they will only support the currently Xbox one for the next two years. It will be phased out but they didn't want to disappoint the players that have just recently purchased one and who to say that another option couldn't be implemented on the older consoles in a few years time to allow the higher end games to use the X-cloud version only. As long as you are a member to the services it won't matter.
reply
MS have already said that they will only support the currently Xbox one for the next two years. It will be phased out but they didn't want to disappoint the players that have just recently purchased one and who to say that another option couldn't be implemented on the older consoles in a few years time to allow the higher end games to use the X-cloud version only. As long as you are a member to the services it won't matter.
reply
cj
On geoforce now. You can bet it costs stadia to stream games as well as xbox. If you want the privelage of streaming these games the folks doing the streaming have to pay the toll. You dont get to streams artists music for free as a platform holder[mostly]. If steam or eipc ever strike a streaming deal this platform is dead. i'm confident that's a question of when rather than if.
reply
On geoforce now. You can bet it costs stadia to stream games as well as xbox. If you want the privelage of streaming these games the folks doing the streaming have to pay the toll. You dont get to streams artists music for free as a platform holder[mostly]. If steam or eipc ever strike a streaming deal this platform is dead. i'm confident that's a question of when rather than if.
reply
Gen
The H1 is NZXT's take on a Shuttle XPC Barbones - Pre-wired mini PC's with cooling/PSU & Mainboard included in the SFF case - They've been out for year's & I have owned many Shuttle XPC's - Actually still have the 21G as my Retro rig. Not sure if they were only available in European/Select markets because they are the same concept & no-one has mentioned them?
reply
The H1 is NZXT's take on a Shuttle XPC Barbones - Pre-wired mini PC's with cooling/PSU & Mainboard included in the SFF case - They've been out for year's & I have owned many Shuttle XPC's - Actually still have the 21G as my Retro rig. Not sure if they were only available in European/Select markets because they are the same concept & no-one has mentioned them?
reply
Michael
I haven't seen it said explicitly myself, does MS say what kind of TFLOPs it has? I find GPU manufacturers often report FP16 TFLOPS instead of FP32. Also TFLOPs are a bad metric for gaming performance. My Vega 56 Pulse has more FP32 TFLOPS then the 5700XT Pulse but that didn't translate to game performance.
reply
I haven't seen it said explicitly myself, does MS say what kind of TFLOPs it has? I find GPU manufacturers often report FP16 TFLOPS instead of FP32. Also TFLOPs are a bad metric for gaming performance. My Vega 56 Pulse has more FP32 TFLOPS then the 5700XT Pulse but that didn't translate to game performance.
reply
Don
The rationale was its a pretty rock solid idea and business model. So the game makers dont want to allow NVIDIA to have a quality head start. In becoming the -go to-, company when it comes to early streaming mindset.
AKA. Companies dont want to give NVIDIA help. In taking future money away from them.
reply
The rationale was its a pretty rock solid idea and business model. So the game makers dont want to allow NVIDIA to have a quality head start. In becoming the -go to-, company when it comes to early streaming mindset.
AKA. Companies dont want to give NVIDIA help. In taking future money away from them.
reply
HotGritz910
Consoles are better for the price. most pc gamers game at 1080-1440p according to steam. Of course with $1200 you could build a better pc. that's fine also. Unless pc gaming gets alot cheaper this round im going strictly consoles. ill have to stick with my 2015 pc build with 980ti and 4690k.
reply
Consoles are better for the price. most pc gamers game at 1080-1440p according to steam. Of course with $1200 you could build a better pc. that's fine also. Unless pc gaming gets alot cheaper this round im going strictly consoles. ill have to stick with my 2015 pc build with 980ti and 4690k.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
1:24:40
