Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Note to ENCODE 4k and 7.1 audio would require on board encoders that dont exist yet.
You're talking about a possible future, that by definition would basicallyrequire hardware that doesn't exist today anyway.
It makes little sense to 'future proof' a $50 device for something you have no idea is going to happen, what encoding protocol will be standard on the encryption side and thus what hardware youd need on the receiver end as well
The reason its $50 is because its a dedicated ARM processor with a dedicated H264 decoder. It's basically designed just to do 1080p@60fps and that's it. On the host end, they already know that anything about 50mps creates way too much latency on the client side to be even usable.
You can't future proof something that's $50. If we get to the point where 4k tvs are $500 at Walmart and the PS9 or XboxCortana all do 4k at 60fps then Valve can just re-release the $50 appliance at that time. There's no utility in future proofing it, increasing its cost, for basically zero benefit for several years. 4K is no where near ubiquitous yet. So there's not much point in 'planning' the device for a future that isn't even on the forseable horizon yet.
The higest bluray I have ever seen was Avatar, and that was 40mbps, and it looks phenomenal.
I've got a gigabit network, and honestly the only difference i ever notice is that file transfers are much faster.
I'm suprised it's only 100mbps (I'd imagine it's pennies more for gigabit), but i'd be highly skeptical it would make a serious difference in the image quality.
EDIT: I also have a Nvida shield tablet that streams steam localy via wifi and or ethernet that does not need 1000 also.
Proof [postimg.org]
Nice, and under magnification it looks fine! No obvious artefacts.
1366x768 = 1049088 pixels it is estimating bandwidth 12Mbps
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels
12 / 1049088 * 2073600 = 23 Mbps
Around 20 to 25 Mbps for 1080p @ 60fps - as an engineer lets call that 30Mbps (heheh)
Assuming your fancy 1Gbps router can do 60Mbps on a 100Mbps line (hopefully its better) then your still have half your bandwidth in reserve.
I do have a 1Gbps router but I have fibre connection with streaming netflix to my roku (wifi) which I have on the 2.4Hz spectrum and all the phones and tablets on the 2.4, so anything I NEED (want ;) ) if my socket power line ehternet connections are not good enough (out of 100 i get 60 so yeah) I use the 5.0Hz just for me and my toys.
That screen shot was been rendered at 1080p on my "rig" and downsampled to my terrible resolution screen on my laptop.
If the shield tablet that I have is anythng to go by (btw that is only 100) and does 1080p 60fps when plugged in to ethernet or on 5.0 wifi, plugged into the TV via HDMI. In-game streaming will be fine for steam. In fact plenty, it says it is going to do 1080p at 60fps well no need for anything else IMHO
I am going to get one of these and the pad just because I know how good it is and how it will look for my living room TV when streaming (plus I sold it to my GF so she can play the new batman while I am at work without the hastle of my PC and her having to mess without my supervisoin!!!!) Plus the price is way cheaper than getting a PS4/XBONE just for her to play
I am glad you had a good look at the screenshot in detail. People like to make a big fuss over nothing.
Things would be different if steam were saying it was going to do 2k at 120 fps but hte "regualar" pc gamer does not have that rig anyway and this is aimed at the majority not the minority [quad sli titan crew] (they dont need it!!!!!)
Sorry for going on but I am glad someone could see what I was hoping for with that screeny
Movies work entirely differently than live streaming.
Remember movies are not latency dependent. Which means they can spend 15 minutes pre-loaing content before sending it to you in the most highly compressed method possible. Also since the content is static they can spend hours pre-compressing it with the highest fidelity and compression ratio before sending it to you.
If streaming did this, you wouldnt notice you had lost 3 rounds of CSGO before the stream started.
For game streaming especially you need to balance fidelity with latency. and in fact gamers are much much much more sensitive to latency issues than fidelity problems. Despite people devouring screenshot comparisions like an episiode of CSI, most people couldn't actually discern the minor details that are lost while they're actually playing from a fidelity perspective. But if the latency was off, the game immediately feels 'wrong'.
Steam in home streaming already knows this. And caps the actual streaming to 30mpbs on the host unles you uncap it. At which point unless you have some kind of monster rig like an array of 2001 Obelisks, the latency for the enconding process is going to kill the gameplay.
Well to play devils advocate you're streaming 720p not 1080p :P
Sure you can. I do it with powerline ethernet and that tops out around 80Mbps. A solid 100Mbps connection would be fine.
I've got the 200 version of that adapter which has 100Mbps connections at each end. The age of your home wiring may indeed be massively affecting the overall speed. Our house was built in 2006 and I get about 80Mbps sustained. I would think though, even with older wiring, you should be seeing 100+Mbps from your adapter.
It's 50 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dollars. When 4K rigs with 7.1 audio are the norm you can toss your old Steam Link and buy the upgraded Steam Link 2 that supports 4K and 7.1 when it inevitably comes out. Why worry about what you might have in the future? Look at what your needs are now and if they don't exceed 100Mbps (hint: they don't) then you're going to be fine. $50 is practically disposable, especially if you have the kind of money it takes to have a playable 4K gaming rig. By the time those are at all within reach of normal gamers, I'm sure there will be a Steam Link ready to support it.
This seems like as good a time as any to point out that regardless of what you think the technical specifications infer about this product it was designed by professionals and has been tested thoroughly.
It will do what it was designed to do.
It's sort of okay. When I wasn't playing a match it was fine however in a match the communication between A and B was quite slow. The game was playable but you definitely noticed periodic jumps and in particular when you had a penalty and you need to get the line in the green area there was about half a second delay between pressing the button and the line stopping moving. Obviously everything in my connection link-up is Gigabit except for the 200Mbps Powerline. If it's that jumpy with a 200mb bottle-neck, I hate to think what a 100mb bottle-neck does.
I actually started out by using Wi-Fi betwen SuperHub and Laptop, but that was excruciatingly slow.