Yeah I think I'm confusing 3D Vision with the requirements for VR. I have a 1920x1080p monitor. Stereoscopic 3D on that monitor requires 2x 1080p performance for 3D so I was equating that to VR, but thinking a little deeper I guess VR achieves the same thing by simply halving the resolution and delivering each half to each eye. So maybe I can get away with a single Pascal then!
Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality
- Thread starter idsn6
- Start date
Yeah I think I'm confusing 3D Vision with the requirements for VR. I have a 1920x1080p monitor. Stereoscopic 3D on that monitor requires 2x 1080p performance for 3D so I was equating that to VR, but thinking a little deeper I guess VR achieves the same thing by simply halving the resolution and delivering each half to each eye. So maybe I can get away with a single Pascal then!
It's worth noting though that a single Titan X already can't achieve 90fps average (nevermind minimum) at 2560x1440 in a lot of modern games at max settings and requirements are only going to get higher in future. So it seems SLI is still going to be a requirement for the full monty experience. Perhaps not Titan X SLI though... but I'd say 2x 970 minimum.
well current rumors put the 390x duking it out within % points of the titan x and will be priced at only $600 as per the rumors. So I believe we could see better than titan performance at $500 or under by fall. I will most likely wait till the HBM 2 designs come out and try to eek more performance out of my 7950 till then. I think a lot of people will opt to render at a lower res for vr and just upscale.
Yeah, minimum framerates especially can be a bitch in VR, so the requirements are probably going to be very high. They'll be even higher at 4K, but that will definitely be for the better.
itsmydamnation
Veteran
i guess the question is what does liquid VR give, will there by any frame interpolation and what rez will the first consumer product be. Also reality is the difference between high and max in terms of visual quality improvements vs performance is terrible. the far more important question is what can these card sustain on high.
Only if you want to use graphics cards that are available for purchase today. In 2016, with nVidias Pascal architecture, and AMDs whatever-they-will-call-it, both using HBM2, who knows quite what the price/performance picture will be like? It won't look like today, that's for sure.
Furthermore, if the Titan X drops below 90fps at max settings, then maybe one could consider dropping some insignificant setting from its maximum? (That's not what is done in benchmarking articles of course because the idea there is not to play games, but to have a reproducible test environment.)
Medium textures? Never!
I always shut off DOF and motion blur however, since neither is appropriate if you are trying to simulate being present in an environment. That usually helps a fair bit.
https://www.oculus.com/blog/first-look-at-the-rift-shipping-q1-2016/
It wont ship till Q1 2016 so about on par with Morpheus so it will be interesting to compare these two.
Also over the coming weeks they will be showing off the new head set plus new input methods
It wont ship till Q1 2016 so about on par with Morpheus so it will be interesting to compare these two.
Also over the coming weeks they will be showing off the new head set plus new input methods
https://www.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/
They also state the rift runs at 2160x1200 at 90hz over dual displays. I'm a bit disappointed that this is coming out a quarter later than the vive and has the same specs.
They also state the rift runs at 2160x1200 at 90hz over dual displays. I'm a bit disappointed that this is coming out a quarter later than the vive and has the same specs.
cheapchips
Veteran
It has better optics and ergonomics than the Vive based on crescent bay comparisons.
cheapchips
Veteran
They've done something with the optics to increase pixel fill / reduce screen door. The hands on with cb were all pretty positive on that front. Not much in the way of text in the demos though.
Isn't that a lower resolution than Crescent Bay? That's weird if so.
So it looks like the PC 'baseline' for VR will be around twice the performance of a PS4. I'm hoping that's just for a full resolution/full frame rate experience at minimum graphics settings and that developers will at least allow the core graphics to scale up for more powerful setups.
So it looks like the PC 'baseline' for VR will be around twice the performance of a PS4. I'm hoping that's just for a full resolution/full frame rate experience at minimum graphics settings and that developers will at least allow the core graphics to scale up for more powerful setups.
The 290 and 970 are more like 3x the ~7850 in the PS4 in actual games.
It would seem even a 970 or 290 is just barely enough to run that res at 90FPS in modern titles. In fact more than a few modern titles require quite a bit of settings reduction to reach 90Hz even at 1080p on those cards. Though maybe there is some CPU limitation involved and other general inefficiencies that D3D12/Vulcan will alleviate.
cheapchips
Veteran
They never said what the resolution was on CB. People just assumed it was on par with GearVR as the screen door effect was less pronounced.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
So that's 1080x1200 per eye. Strange resolution. At first I thought it was 2160x1200 for each eye, but HDMI 1.3 wouldn't be able to provide the bandwidth needed for that at 90 Hz.
And looking at it, that's almost at the limit of what HDMI 1.3 can provide. So they couldn't have offered much of a resolution bump over that while still using HDMI (without going to HDMI 2.0). It's a shame they didn't spec for Display Port and a higher resolution per eye. I guess HDMI is the spec they are using so users can use it for 3D TV content? Although doesn't 3D on TV require HDMI 1.4? [edit] Ah read it again, HDMI is used for compatibility with most laptops I guess.
Regards,
SB
