Cloud, Centralized Compute, and VDI: Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail
“Fail to plan, plan to fail.” Franklin and Churchill may not have been thinking about Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) when they said this, but Mechdyne is.
If you do not plan for the push towards higher resolution desktops and graphics intensive applications, your VDI or centralized compute strategy will fail.
Despite their claims, remote desktop software and hardware protocols do not support 4K resolution or higher. Poor image quality, choppy video, and instability are all common complaints of remote desktop users. Even if remote desktops meet basic IT requirements, underperformance in the end-user experience compromises a user’s ability to be successful.
Quality End User Experience Delivered by Remote Desktop
In order to displace industry remote desktop options, such as HP RGS or Teradicci PCoIP, the TGX development team created a solution exceeding the requirements of the most demanding power users. TGX securely and efficiently delivers high resolution imagery without introducing latency—performance other products on the market struggle to provide. TGX supports resolutions of 4K and higher without compromising the performance of the application.
To prove our point and to highlight the differences, we conducted a series of tests against the competition. When compared to HP RGS 7.2:
|Bandwidth Limitation||Bandwidth Utilization
How We Tested
To demonstrate and compare the quality of the remote desktop user experience, this test focused on the remote desktops’ ability to deliver a fluid, responsive user experience in a graphically-intense environment. Using the Canyon Flight demonstration of 3DMark06, the test benchmarks a computer’s ability to render complex environments in real-time. The Canyon Flight demonstration is rendered at 4K (3840×2160) resolution, exercising the CPU and GPU similar to modern CAD/CAM and visualization software.
The smooth animation of Canyon Flight demonstrates the ability of the remote desktop application to deliver high framerates under the demands of full screen video and constantly changing pixels. Together with a hardware network emulator that allows for bandwidth restrictions and other limitations of real networks, this test provides a consistent, repeatable benchmark of a remote desktop application’s performance.
For the comparison between TGX and RGS, both applications run at default image quality settings:
- RGS encodes the desktop using the proprietary HP3 codec running in software on the Sender CPU.
- TGX employs dedicated video encoding hardware found on modern graphics boards.
On an unrestrained 1Gbps LAN, RGS is only capable of sending at 10 frames per second at 4K resolution, limited by the high CPU demands of the software HP3 codec. Even at low framerates, RGS demands 80Mbps of network bandwidth. TGX runs at 37 frames per second, using only 31 Mbps of bandwidth. At nearly four times the framerate, TGX demands less than half the network bandwidth. As bandwidth limitations are imposed, RGS falls to unusable framerates, while TGX remains responsive.
By employing hardware video encoding, TGX delivers a fluid, responsive experience at 4K resolutions while preserving CPU, GPU, and network bandwidth resources.
NVIDIA Quadro M6000
4 core Intel Xeon 2.13 Ghz
6.0 GB RAM
NVIDIA Quadro K5000
4 core Intel Xeon 3.07 Ghz
16.0 GB RAM
If RGS 7.2 does not meet the requirements of your more demanding user groups we ask that you consider TGX. Try TGX in your environment today by contacting Mark Hirst. Get more information on TGX today.