so basically a mainframe? I can't imagine it's economically viable though. a 64 core threadripper costs more than eight ryzen 3700x and clocks lower.
I personal think it's a super awesome setup, but it's _definitely not_ for the faint of heart. You have to _really enjoy_ debugging crazy shit for it to be worth it.
But even at my "budget" $2400 range, a $20/month for 4 users of some game streaming service, would buy me about _ten years_ for that price.
The economics of a streaming service are really quite killer.
//Edit: Using a Ryzen 5 2600 and a Gigabyte X470 Auros Ultra Gaming
- Follow the instructions in this video for getting a dump of your vbios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM7ntkiUoPk (you can stop once you've gotten the vbios)
- Make sure your Unraid is updated to at least 6.7
- Read the "New vfio-bind method" section of: https://forums.unraid.net/topic/80001-unraid-os-version-67-a...
- Use the knowledge gained from that to add an IOMMU group assigned to your GT710 to /boot/config/vfio-pci.cfg
- Reboot your Unraid server
- Do the normal gpu passthrough thing for the GT710 for a VM, but add the dumped vbios to the "Graphics ROM BIOS:" field in the VM "edit" gui
Hopefully it should work :D
One thing to keep in mind about the vfio-pci.cfg file is that it's effectively a blacklist, and if you do something that could change your IOMMU group assignments (such as adding or removing a PCI device) you could end up inadvertently blacklisting a PCI device you don't intend to. All you need to do is update the IOMMU groups in vfio-pci.cfg to fix it, but it can freak you out if you're not expecting it.
(For example if I remove one of my GPUs, one of my SATA controllers will inevitably end up getting the IOMMU group that _used_ to belong to a GPU, so it'll get blacklisted, and two of my array drives will appear missing until I update the vfio-pci.cfg to match the new IOMMU groups)
You can pick up a used i5-3xxx or 4xxx system with 8GB of RAM real cheap. If you get one that has at least a 300W power supply, you can then put in a GTX 1660 or similar and do quite well with most games. Max settings @ 1080p for some older games, and still decently playable at decent quality for the newer ones. And all for $300 USD or less.
I just put an RX 580 with 8GB of video RAM into my old i5-3570S system. The card was just $135 at Microcenter, because it was open-box.
Even then you'll need 27 months (2 years and 3 months) before being more cost effective than Geforce Now. That's considering that you are on a desktop though with a CPU powerful enough.
Personally I started doing cloud gaming mostly because I was on a netbook at school (I liked the form factor and the battery life was quite nice versus most laptop). At first on OnLive, then on LiquidSky, and since a year ago, on Geforce Now.
I don't believe the service will stay at 5$/month though, both service I used shutdown because they weren't viable and they were in the 10$ range. LiquidSky was supposed to come back, but they missed multiple release date now and with the release of GeForce Now, I have no hope. Shadow seems more viable at 25$/month, which makes your solution much more cost effective.
Well he also built a 6 PC watercooling loop, so yeah not all of it is particularly applicable to the average viewer
When I saw his LAN gaming center I though it would be cool if he'd retry that project for that. :->
With the kind of workshop they are building with Alex, it's clear they are aware of that. Let just hope they can do more of them quicker!
I don't think the core speed would matter much - Steam reports 37% of gamers are using 3ghz-and-below processors so they may be mediocre but still competent:
I think personally I'd opt for building four or five separate machines and managing them as a cluster though.
In some sort of software engineering commune?
I've also found it fun to live with people with varying interests, living with just other software engineers might be boring. Common hobbies are great though. Imagine every night being a lan party.
Half of the SWEs I work with don’t game.
* Can run two OS at one time, each with half the resources * Can run one with full resources if needed * Can have multiple linux and windows installs * Can have snapshots of installs * Takes around 5-10 seconds to swap one of the running installs for a different install * Can run headless VMs on a core or two while doing all the above, ie a test runner or similar service if needed
I use a 49" ultrawide with PBP, have one GPU connected to each side, so the booted installs automatically appear side to side, and Synergy to make mouse movement seamless, etc, etc
It took a little work to set up, but I've worked this way for ~ 3 years now and never had to think about the setup after the initial time investment, and during upgrades. Highly recommend it.
I definitely can see the advantage for a small team for having a single large machine with multiple GPUs, and letting them sit at a thin workspace and "Check out" whatever install they want to use, how much CPU power and RAM they need, etc, clone and duplicate installs and get a copy with their personal files in home, ready to go, and can check out larger slices of the machine when they have more CPU/GPU intensive tasks, that's probably my ideal office machine, after using my solo workstation for a while
The only real hurdle hardware wise is your IOMMU groups and your CPU compatibility, if you have a moderately modern system it should be a problem.
I also have a couple of inexpensive PCIe USB cards that I pass through to the guests for direct USB access, highly recommended.
The guides will use qcow2 images or pass through a block device, as I mentioned I have a giant LVM pool, I just create lvs for each vm and pass the volume through to the vm as a disk , and let the vm handle it. In the host you can use kpartx to bind and mount the partitions if you ever need to open them up.
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PCI_passthrough_via_OVM...
This is like the Arch Linux of computer hardware. You don't install Arch Linux to get shit done. You do it because you like building and configuring, and to learn about Linux.
I'm on Mac at the moment and frequently pine for Arch. 'What on Earth just happened...', 'What did that...', 'What is this...', 'Well that wouldn't have happened on Arch.'
People claim Mac 'just works' because of out-of-the-box readiness, well I'd say in contrast Arch 'still works' or 'keeps working': it does what you tell it and if you don't tell it to change, it stays working in the same way.
I just wish I could pay a company that would have engineers and designers building an actual user-friendly, stable OS on top of Linux. Mac OS, with all its faults, is still miles ahead in terms of usability and polish.
Not if you "borrowed them from work for testing"...
And that's the core problem, isn't it? Aren't games notorious for being mostly sequential workloads?
As 4 core/8 thread machines become basically the minimum you can assume most pc gamers will have we'll probably see devs making more use of multithreading everywhere.
I see what you did there.
If you go for a 12 or 16 core Threadripper like the 2920X or 2950X you're only looking at $425/$690, which is $106/$173 per "PC".
Combine that with the savings you get from not having to buy 4 cases, PSUs and motherboards and I think a multi-head threadripper setup will end up significantly cheaper than buying 4 machines.
I tried a round of FPS with it. It wasn't that bad, honestly. My ping to the GeForce server was about 12ms, and the ping from GeForce to the game server was < 2ms. That's actually lower latency than I'm used to with an Xbox.
It did feel a bit laggy, though, despite the low latency. But I'd try it again. For me the benefit is in resource-intensive single player games.
Either way, for $5 a month, it's a great deal!
I then bought a dummy HDMI plug, and installed some open source software called Moonlight on my Mac and Linux systems.
I can stream my games locally no problem from my VM. Eventually I want to get wireguard set up, and test performance over VPN, but I really haven’t had a reason to try it just yet.
If I can figure that out, may be in love.
The direction we're going in is massive parallel computing, not massive chips. Threadripper represent the pinnacle of individual chips but I'd imagine having 4 boxes that are each 3800X + 1GPU + 128 GB ram would be cheaper and easier to maintain both hardware and software wise? Except it wouldn't sound as fun.
I wonder if using Wireguard could improve the performance of a custom solution.
Doing this on-premise is also pretty tantalizing - I watched a video recently of Linus Tech Tips where he built a 64 core Threadripper and used virtual machines to replace four physical computers in his home including two players simultaneously gaming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvzeZCZluJ0