Hacker News Reader

What's the point in streaming a video game from one computer to another if the client machine still needs the expensive and power hungry dedicated graphics hardware to display it?

View on HN

You could use that to have a chungus dGPU with a massive amount of VRAM keep all the assets, position data and god knows what else to do the heavy lifting - determine what needs to be drawn and where, deal with physics, 3D audio simulation etc. - and then offload only a (comparatively) small-ish amount of work to the client GPU.

But those are the cheap parts compared to the rendering itself. A small-ish amount of work is what we're already sending, the final image, because anything else takes much, much more GPU work.

The client GPU still needs all those assets in its own VRAM in order to render any scene that uses them. You would need to stream all of those assets in real time to the client, and last I checked consumer network interfaces are checks notes slower than 16 PCI Express lanes.

I'm still unsure what computational resources are being saved for the client here, the actual rasterization is where the bulk of the work is done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com