[pbohun]

No, the GPUs used in AI data centers don't have the capability to do normal graphics. They're completely useless for games and content creation. Additionally, B200s can consume up to 14kW of power. There are no consumer power supplies that could power such a thing.

The sad thing is all that silicon will basically be worthless.

[uejfiweun]

Prediction: it's not gonna be worthless for games. This is what's gonna make cloud gaming really take off. True, you can't use these as desktop GPUs, but they can be installed in data centers for purposes of video game streaming rather than AI.

[FridgeSeal]

The physics of latency disagree fundamentally here.

Gaming, as a market, dislikes Live Service games, and many recent ones have basically flipped right out of the gate.

Stadia was the exact flop everyone predicted, and simply throwing bigger compute won’t help. That market, simply, does not want that product offering.

[jijijijij]

> The physics of latency disagree fundamentally here.

We just use AI to predict player actions, duh?!

[uejfiweun]

I think you're just wrong on this. Stadia did flop, but that's a Google problem, not a tech problem. I play online games with multiple people who only play through GeForce Now, and they've never complained. Especially in an era of increasing hardware prices, this is just gonna grow.

Also, do you know much about the games space? There's an enormous difference between a live service game, and a cloud game streaming platform.

[edward28]

They lack the raster engines to display graphics. So they couldn't be used to render games.

[jijijijij]

> This is what's gonna make cloud gaming really take off.

Hypepunk at the dawn of silicon gothic.