Also:
> I arrived at a farmhouse in a small forest…
Were you not worried you were going to get murdered?
People have gotten games to run on a DGX Spark, which is somewhat similar (GB10 instead of GH200)
In AMD I’ve read it works great, but for NVIDIA chips, in mouse heavy games, it becomes unusable for me.
But I also think that for people that didn't try a "snappier" alternative, it was possible not to realize it's there.
Try and make a comparison with Parsec of even the Steam's own streaming. You will notice a big difference if the issue still exists.
I now remember there was a way to go around it (a bit cumbersome and ugly) which was to render the mouse pointer only locally. That means no mouse cursor changes for tooltips/resizing/different pointers in games, etc. But at least it gets rid of the lag.
LTT tried it in one of their videos...forgot which card but one of the serious nvidia AI cards.
...it runs like shit for gaming workloads. It does the job but comfortably beaten by a mid tier consumer card for 1/10th the price
Their AI track datacenter cards are definitely not same thing different badge glued on
he had left a trail of breadcrumbs. although he was hungry, it seemed a prudent precaution.
It's an interesting question, and since OP indicates he previously had a 4090, he's qualified to reply and hopefully will. However, I suspect the GH200 won't turn out to run games much faster than a 5090 because A) Games aren't designed to exploit the increased capabilities of this hardware, and B) The GH200 drivers wouldn't be tuned for game performance. One of the biggest differences of datacenter AI GPUs is the sheer memory size, and there's little reason for a game to assume there's more than 16GB of video memory available.
More broadly, this is a question that, for the past couple decades, I'd have been very interested in. For a lot of years, looking at today's most esoteric, expensive state-of-the-art was the best way to predict what tomorrow's consumer desktop might be capable of. However, these days I'm surprised to find myself no longer fascinated by this. Having been riveted by the constant march of real-time computer graphics from the 90s to 2020 (including attending many Siggraph conferences in the 90s and 00s), I think we're now nearing the end of truly significant progress in consumer gaming graphics.
I do realize that's a controversial statement, and sure there will always be a way to throw more polys, bigger textures and heavier algorithms at any game, but... each increasing increment just doesn't matter as much as it once did. For typical desktop and couch consumer gaming, the upgrade from 20fps to 60fps was a lot more meaningful to most people than 120fps to 360fps. With synthetic frame and pixel generation, increasing resolution beyond native 4K matters less. (Note: head-mounted AR/VR might one of the few places 'moar pixels' really matters in the future). Sure, it can look a bit sharper, a bit more varied and the shadows can have more perfect ray-traced fall-off, but at this point piling on even more of those technically impressive feats of CGI doesn't make the game more fun to play, whether on a 75" TV at 8 feet or a 34-inch monitor at two feet. As an old-school computer graphics guy, it's incredible to be see real-time path tracing adding subtle colors to shadows from light reflections bouncing off colored walls. It's living in the sci-fi future we dreamed of at Siggraph '92. But as a gamer looking for some fun tonight, honestly... the improved visuals don't contribute much to the overall gameplay between a 3070, 4070 and 5070.