I want a new GPU for VR!

funkydmunky

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
3,866
The market so sucks atm. We aren't in a minning boom yet prices are lofty still.
I had high hopes for the new AMD 7900 series. They fattened the bus over the 6000 series so there shouldn't be a 4K+ VR drop, and they gave as usual, far more RAM per $ then Nvidia. But for some reason (limited reasourses to get good VR GPU benchmark comparisons) they seem to be quite poor in VR considering their very high specs and high pancake gaming performance (Raster beast for the $)
Ya the 6000 series started out slow in VR as well but from benches I've seen did well to narrow the gap mostly but with same tier Nvidia cards still taking the win by a good notch. Now some benchmarks show 7000 series = or lower then 6000 series in some games. WTF AMD? How can your uber horse power models built with the same RDNA arch regress with all the fat specs?
Now for Nvidia we continually get RAM and bus restricted parts for premium $. That is until you go to the high end and pay extremely high $ for the cards with proper bus speed and RAM. A 4070ti is a pricey card and has that Nvidia VR driver goodness so it will perform, yet that stupid budget 192 bit bus and meager 12GB RAM should sour any VR enthusiast hopes that that card is a good VR investment (still probably the VR go to if that is your budget. Sad!)
If someone wants things to run right with adequate hardware I see the 4080 16GB as the model to get. Yet that damn $! Also it is just a 16GB card which is literally the bare minimum in this day and age. So minimal future proofing and it is so costly in comparison if you do play 2D titles as well.
All in all what a shit show peeps! And it isn't like there are many/any resources that focus on this as VR from a GPU perspective is extraordinarily hard to come by. AMD could fix their VR drivers making the 7900XTX the go to for the $, but how would we know?
[H]VR forums are pretty meek these days. Not much community or input happening, but if you have any good likes, sites, or reviews to share then please do.
Stay thirsty and keep your goggles on!
 
Last edited:
Personally, I do not even think that VR headsets are adequate yet.
However, I believe that's about to change, and it will change THIS generation.

I've been waiting many many years, ever since I tested the Oculus DK2, and I knew right away that it'd be about four or five generations before it's truly going to bloom.
And this is it. I don't think all the new gen headsets are out yet, but I know I'm seeing some news about new models, and the new Playstation VR is most certainly the herald of the new age of VR.

Now, I don't think Playstation VR is what I want, but I think that this new one is the moment I've been waiting for, and whatever Steam or HTC or other companies produce after this point; that's what I'm gonna be buying.
I've saved my money for this a looooong time, and I think it's finally here.

Of course, that means that all GPUs that are out right now are not quite adequate, except maybe the RTX 4090.
It will be the RTX 5000 series that gives us the true power we crave.

Just my opinion.
 
1337Goat said:
Personally, I do not even think that VR headsets are adequate yet.
However, I believe that's about to change, and it will change THIS generation.

I've been waiting many many years, ever since I tested the Oculus DK2, and I knew right away that it'd be about four or five generations before it's truly going to bloom.
And this is it. I don't think all the new gen headsets are out yet, but I know I'm seeing some news about new models, and the new Playstation VR is most certainly the herald of the new age of VR.

Now, I don't think Playstation VR is what I want, but I think that this new one is the moment I've been waiting for, and whatever Steam or HTC or other companies produce after this point; that's what I'm gonna be buying.
I've saved my money for this a looooong time, and I think it's finally here.

Of course, that means that all GPUs that are out right now are not quite adequate, except maybe the RTX 4090.
It will be the RTX 5000 series that gives us the true power we crave.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Not adequate yet? Yes they are and have been for a while. My headsets aren't lacking but my hardware struggles to let it shine at full potential. So many SIMs are just so demanding. Not a HMD problem. We learn to lower settings and it is still so far beyond that 2D display it is laughable.
Is there room for improvement in HMD? Ya of course there is and always will be. Forever. Just like the PC hardware that drives it.
 
Nvidia apparently invested quite heavily in VR optimizations for their drivers with the 1xxx series; AMD has apparently never put forth more than a token effort. Nvidia will remain the optimal choice for VR at least until AMD makes a real effort.
 
I can say from first-hand experience that the Babel Tech Reviews figures on VR performance for the 7900 XTX vs. the RTX 4080 and 4090 are not a fluke - the 4080 just utterly curbstomps AMD's best RDNA 3 card to the point that you might as well pay the extra $200, or the extra $600 if you can really swing it for the 4090.

Sure, DCS (one of the more dreadfully unoptimized VR titles, yet one that it's difficult to go back to playing in pancake mode after the fact) is at long last getting a proper multithreading implementation, with a new Vulkan renderer to follow suit, which may lessen the need of a 4090 just to avoid reprojection at all costs.

But back in December 2022, that open beta was not out yet. All I had was a 7900 XTX that kept dropping below the 90 FPS threshold and smearing up my cockpit from motion smoothing artifacts even in a relatively undemanding free flight, and the defective vapor chamber throttling the clocks did not help at all. (Yeah, imagine that, spending $1,000 on a GPU on the day of its release, and they can't even make it function properly on the standard horizontal orientation for most graphics cards to be installed in!)

I traded for the 4080, and the motion smoothing is almost gone because it can maintain above 90 FPS most of the time. It's night and day.

This is on a Valve Index, so resolution is less demanding than newer HMDs like the HP Reverb G2 and Varjo Aero, but refresh rate scales anywhere from 80 to 144 Hz. I find that reining it back to 80 Hz is still comfortable enough for me, but provides that extra frame time headroom needed to avoid reprojection/motion smoothing.

I would love for AMD to actually be competitive in VR performance, as NVIDIA really needs to be taken down a peg with their pricing right now, but I don't buy hardware largely on future promises. I buy based on what it can do now, and right now, NVIDIA is the only game in town for high-end VR.
 
NamelessPFG said:
I can say from first-hand experience that the Babel Tech Reviews figures on VR performance for the 7900 XTX vs. the RTX 4080 and 4090 are not a fluke - the 4080 just utterly curbstomps AMD's best RDNA 3 card to the point that you might as well pay the extra $200, or the extra $600 if you can really swing it for the 4090.

Sure, DCS (one of the more dreadfully unoptimized VR titles, yet one that it's difficult to go back to playing in pancake mode after the fact) is at long last getting a proper multithreading implementation, with a new Vulkan renderer to follow suit, which may lessen the need of a 4090 just to avoid reprojection at all costs.

But back in December 2022, that open beta was not out yet. All I had was a 7900 XTX that kept dropping below the 90 FPS threshold and smearing up my cockpit from motion smoothing artifacts even in a relatively undemanding free flight, and the defective vapor chamber throttling the clocks did not help at all. (Yeah, imagine that, spending $1,000 on a GPU on the day of its release, and they can't even make it function properly on the standard horizontal orientation for most graphics cards to be installed in!)

I traded for the 4080, and the motion smoothing is almost gone because it can maintain above 90 FPS most of the time. It's night and day.

This is on a Valve Index, so resolution is less demanding than newer HMDs like the HP Reverb G2 and Varjo Aero, but refresh rate scales anywhere from 80 to 144 Hz. I find that reining it back to 80 Hz is still comfortable enough for me, but provides that extra frame time headroom needed to avoid reprojection/motion smoothing.

I would love for AMD to actually be competitive in VR performance, as NVIDIA really needs to be taken down a peg with their pricing right now, but I don't buy hardware largely on future promises. I
Click to expand...
I agree. The most troubling thing with Bable Tech's review is often the 6000 series is quite competative with Nvidia for the price but the 7000 series is often at or near 6000 levels of performance. This makes no sense as 7000 series fixed bandwidth issues that had held 6000 series back, and should be a massive improvement and it is not.
NamelessPFG said:
buy based on what it can do now, and right now, NVIDIA is the only game in town for high-
Click to expand...
 
1337Goat said:
Personally, I do not even think that VR headsets are adequate yet.
However, I believe that's about to change, and it will change THIS generation.

I've been waiting many many years, ever since I tested the Oculus DK2, and I knew right away that it'd be about four or five generations before it's truly going to bloom.
And this is it. I don't think all the new gen headsets are out yet, but I know I'm seeing some news about new models, and the new Playstation VR is most certainly the herald of the new age of VR.

Now, I don't think Playstation VR is what I want, but I think that this new one is the moment I've been waiting for, and whatever Steam or HTC or other companies produce after this point; that's what I'm gonna be buying.
I've saved my money for this a looooong time, and I think it's finally here.

Of course, that means that all GPUs that are out right now are not quite adequate, except maybe the RTX 4090.
It will be the RTX 5000 series that gives us the true power we crave.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If your planning on getting into PC VR i'd definitely wait right now. Current headsets are bad except for the $10k one. For additional reasoning on that front if new headsets adopt eye tracking like the PSVR2 then that will significantly lower the GPU/VRAM requirement in theory.
 
funkydmunky said:
I agree. The most troubling thing with Bable Tech's review is often the 6000 series is quite competative with Nvidia for the price but the 7000 series is often at or near 6000 levels of performance. This makes no sense as 7000 series fixed bandwidth issues that had held 6000 series back, and should be a massive improvement and it is not.
Click to expand...
I recall prior Babel Tech Reviews articles on RDNA 2 vs. Ampere also being heavily in Ampere's favor overall, but that was with launch drivers.

It's well noted that AMD's recent architectures seem to have "fine wine" drivers that more than leveled the playing field as time went by, but reviewers rarely revisit past products to see how much of an effect things like new driver versions and patched games could've improved things.

Even trickier is that, apparently, past a certain driver version, AMD introduced significant VR performance regressions that still haven't been fixed on RDNA 2, never mind 3.

I would not mind testing this out for myself, but $600 for a 6950 XT from the local Micro Center (and that's with a bundled CPU purchase, $650 otherwise!) is a bit of a tall order just to sate curiosity (and also to outfit my Threadripper 1950X build with a decent GPU at the same time, not that I'd use that system for VR when my 12700K/4080 system is built for that).
 
Last edited:
flegg said:
Agreed. If your planning on getting into PC VR i'd definitely wait right now. Current headsets are bad except for the $10k one. For additional reasoning on that front if new headsets adopt eye tracking like the PSVR2 then that will significantly lower the GPU/VRAM requirement in theory.
Click to expand...

$10k headset? Lol wut? Have you even touched a VR headset made in the last 5 years, or ever?

Quest 2 is a great PC VR experience and they were going for $300 at one point. Hell, you can even play Quest 2 standalone without a PC and it's pretty great. It came out in 2020 and has outsold the new Xbox, something like 20 million of them. VR isn't some niche thing only millionaries can afford.
Quest 2 was the first headset I considered high enough resolution that it wasn't bothersome to me. But I think for a lot of people that was the Valve Index which came out in 2019.

I've upgraded to a Quest Pro which has eye tracking, but even without eye tracking you can still do foveated rendering and just target the center screen because that's where you're looking the majority of the time.
I used a 3090 which was more than adequate but I've since upgraded to a 4090 and it runs all the games I play great. It really depends on the games you play, but a lot of them are designed to run fine on much older GPUs.

As other people have said I've heard a lot of people having problems or just poor relative performance with AMD cards. I wouldn't be so obsessed with "future proofing" with higher memory. Just get the currently best performing card you can for what you're willig to pay.
 
NamelessPFG said:
I recall prior Babel Tech Reviews articles on RDNA 2 vs. Ampere also being heavily in Ampere's favor overall, but that was with launch drivers.

It's well noted that AMD's recent architectures seem to have "fine wine" drivers that more than leveled the playing field as time went by, but reviewers rarely revisit past products to see how much of an effect things like new driver versions and patched games could've improved things.

Even trickier is that, apparently, past a certain driver version, AMD introduced significant VR performance regressions that still haven't been fixed on RDNA 2, never mind 3.

I would not mind testing this out for myself, but $600 for a 6950 XT from the local Micro Center (and that's with a bundled CPU purchase, $650 otherwise!) is a bit of a tall order just to sate curiosity (and also to outfit my Threadripper 1950X build with a decent GPU at the same time, not that I'd use that system for VR when my 12700K/4080 system is built for that).
Click to expand...
Yes it seems the 6000 series improved from launch for VR. Its medium bus and infinity cache performed well but didn't make it a star at 4K/VR resolutions. Troublesome the 7000 series digressed and seems obvious to me that AMD rushed in the launch to meet deadlines as evident by the numerous issues that surfaced. But this isn't a ground up new design, just a continuation of RDNA. Makes me think something in the new design didn't quite work and adds a latency at times which is amplified in VR. Whether the driver team can overcome this or not or perhaps they are going to correct in HW and launch a revised series has yet to be seen. Suspicious to me we are pushing half a year and AMD hasn't continued to fill out the GPU line-up.
 
Last edited:
sharknice said:
$10k headset? Lol wut? Have you even touched a VR headset made in the last 5 years, or ever?

Quest 2 is a great PC VR experience and they were going for $300 at one point. Hell, you can even play Quest 2 standalone without a PC and it's pretty great. It came out in 2020 and has outsold the new Xbox, something like 20 million of them. VR isn't some niche thing only millionaries can afford.
Quest 2 was the first headset I considered high enough resolution that it wasn't bothersome to me. But I think for a lot of people that was the Valve Index which came out in 2019.

I've upgraded to a Quest Pro which has eye tracking, but even without eye tracking you can still do foveated rendering and just target the center screen because that's where you're looking the majority of the time.
I used a 3090 which was more than adequate but I've since upgraded to a 4090 and it runs all the games I play great. It really depends on the games you play, but a lot of them are designed to run fine on much older GPUs.

As other people have said I've heard a lot of people having problems or just poor relative performance with AMD cards. I wouldn't be so obsessed with "future proofing" with higher memory. Just get the currently best performing card you can for what you're willig to pay.
Click to expand...
The Quest 2 is great for the price but it's still bad from the perspective of what I personally believe OP is looking for though he could have expounded more. The resolution is bad, the lens is bad, the black levels are terrible, the motion is ok, the sound stage is barely ok, the controls/functionality/fit are great. The resolution/DPI is lower than what's advertised.
I own a Quest 2 and I will buy PSVR2 as soon as a media player app is released.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
There needs to be more VR testing with various HW configs. I can watch GPU benchmarks all day but nothing shows VR. And if they do it is always more focused on the HMD and not the entire hardware suite and how that performs compared to others.
Things like SAM/ReBAR, for example are not even mentioned.
 
flegg said:
The Quest 2 is great for the price but it's still bad from the perspective of what I personally believe OP is looking for though he could have expounded more.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The OP is look for a new GPU. It's right there in the thread title. "I want a new GPU for VR"

flegg said:
The resolution/DPI is lower than what's advertised.
Click to expand...

What?
 
flegg said:
The Quest 2 is great for the price but it's still bad from the perspective of what I personally believe OP is looking for though he could have expounded more. The resolution is bad, the lens is bad, the black levels are terrible, the motion is ok, the sound stage is barely ok, the controls/functionality/fit are great. The resolution/DPI is lower than what's advertised.
I own a Quest 2 and I will buy PSVR2 as soon as a media player app is released.
Click to expand...

PSVR2 actually has less resolution than advertised because it uses pentile displays. It has a lot less subpixels than the Quest 2.
Sound stage? PSVR2 doesn't even have built in audio, it comes with ear buds. If you want good sound on any VR headset, use real headphones.
 
funkydmunky said:
There needs to be more VR testing with various HW configs. I can watch GPU benchmarks all day but nothing shows VR. And if they do it is always more focused on the HMD and not the entire hardware suite and how that performs compared to others.
Things like SAM/ReBAR, for example are not even mentioned.
Click to expand...
It seems like nobody even tests ReBAR except for the case of those new Intel Arc GPUs that performed absolutely horribly without it, which was a missed opportunity when those cards would've been especially suited to platforms that predated official ReBAR support (particularly 4th through 7th-gen Core).

I suppose there's ReBarUEFI, but injecting UEFI modules and them flashing them to the motherboard is farther than most people should have to go to get usable performance.

And yes, I feel your pain on the lack of VR testing and benchmarks, especially after the person who did all that over at Babel Tech Reviews stepped down. That's not just for GPUs; I want to see stuff like 5800X3D vs. 7800X3D vs. 7950X3D vs. 13900K in VR, too. (The 5800X3D is already a proven CPU for minimizing framedrops in VR, I just want to see how the Zen 4 parts compare, and also Intel for a bit of reference.)
 
NamelessPFG said:
It seems like nobody even tests ReBAR except for the case of those new Intel Arc GPUs that performed absolutely horribly without it, which was a missed opportunity when those cards would've been especially suited to platforms that predated official ReBAR support (particularly 4th through 7th-gen Core).

I suppose there's ReBarUEFI, but injecting UEFI modules and them flashing them to the motherboard is farther than most people should have to go to get usable performance.

And yes, I feel your pain on the lack of VR testing and benchmarks, especially after the person who did all that over at Babel Tech Reviews stepped down. That's not just for GPUs; I want to see stuff like 5800X3D vs. 7800X3D vs. 7950X3D vs. 13900K in VR, too. (The 5800X3D is already a proven CPU for minimizing framedrops in VR, I just want to see how the Zen 4 parts compare, and also Intel for a bit of reference.)
Click to expand...
Completely agree and thanks for sharing your pain and frustration as well ;)
Hardware Unboxed 7800X3D review did a lot of SAM/ReBAR in their graphs at multi rez'z (with Intel) and I applaud them at that even if nothing touched VR and even the 4K results don't really give any true indication of how well one HMD will work will one GPU or one CPU.
If AMD gave a proper 7000 series a proper VR driver update I don't even think I would hear about it. :(
 
6800 XT + Reverb G2, there's certainly issues to get the performance right. With Alyx I had to turn off motion smoothing with it on it would often get locked at 45 FPS, now it sits at 90 ultra settings. If you don't want to have to debug and figure out performance issues, I've heard nvidia is basically just plug and play for VR. There's oddities with the 6800 XT, but once it's right the performance is excellent. TBH, I would've bought a 3090 if I could a used one for the right price, I just don't trust cards on ebay unless they're EVGA and have atleast a year's worth of warranty time on them. I also have no interest in any card under 16 gb of vram, and I'm not willing to pay the 4080 tax. 6800 XT is a good card, but again, not without its issues.
 
Last edited:
Saw this today. might explain why AMD didn't hit advertised targets but is price/performance fine/good in pancake, yet in VR not so much.

8:40 on. Seems like what I just suggested ya? There are probs and the performance should have been dramatically better. NEVER BUY DAY 1! Can they fix it? Will they fix it?
If they have tried this long (watch the vid!) and haven't been able to solve it (again fine for pancake at the $) VR is a loss this round.

PS- not posting in the usual places as I am HOPING to drag a little awareness and attention to the [H]VR Forum about an issue that is so critically ignored. "VR anything will make your rig suck faster!" And should be how things are benched.
 
Last edited:
funkydmunky said:
AMD could fix their VR drivers making the 7900XTX the go to for the $, but how would we know?
Click to expand...
Nope. It's beyond just "hope for better drivers". There are hardware/architectural issues that have hamstrung AMD cards in VR performance relative to Nvidia. And with AMD's move to chiplet GPU arch, the VR situation for AMD cards only got worse for frametimes.

Short answer is buy the latest Nvidia GPU you can afford if you want max PCVR. This has consistently been the rule ever since 2016 when HardOCP Kyle's VR reviews first started shedding light on the frametime differences, with Nvidia consistently lower and smoother on graphs, and AMD frametimes higher and erratic.

Frametime isn't the only metric, but it's the most insightful single metric for VR because it's highly indicative of overall VR performance, and it can't really be fudged or bullshitted.
 
Last edited:
My 7900xtx runs my 5k super HMD at steam SS 3176X2612 pixels at 85+ fps on the low bios switch and -8% power slider during game play in IL2 sturmovic. I consider that pretty friggen decent performance for a card that "just can't do VR"
 
DPI said:
Nope. It's beyond just "hope for better drivers". There are hardware/architectural issues that have hamstrung AMD cards in VR performance relative to Nvidia. And with AMD's move to chiplet GPU arch, the VR situation for AMD cards only got worse for frametimes.

Short answer is buy the latest Nvidia GPU you can afford if you want max PCVR. This has consistently been the rule ever since 2016 when HardOCP Kyle's VR reviews first started shedding light on the frametime differences, with Nvidia consistently lower and smoother on graphs, and AMD frametimes higher and erratic.

Frametime isn't the only metric, but it's the most insightful single metric for VR because it's highly indicative of overall VR performance, and it can't really be fudged or bullshitted.
Click to expand...
Woosh! Look up!!
You didn't get what I said dude.
"How would we know?" that was the question. Thanks for playing though.
 
learners permit said:
My 7900xtx runs my 5k super HMD at steam SS 3176X2612 pixels at 85+ fps on the low bios switch and -8% power slider during game play in IL2 sturmovic. I consider that pretty friggen decent performance for a card that "just can't do VR"
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that RDNA 3 "just can't do VR" - that's a statement more befitting of Intel's Arc cards right now.

I would say, however, that it is currently bad value for VR performance, all things being at MSRP, unless something's seriously changed over the past few months.

I have not tested IL-2 Great Battles in a long while, so perhaps I ought to give that a shot. Can't be optimized worse than DCS at any rate, though it's certainly too much for an old GTX 980 from the last time I tried it. (Now if someone could VR-mod the original, up-through-1946 release, I'd be all over that...)
 
Yea a VR mod for the original 1946 would be amazing but I doubt we'll ever see that. Overall though I'm very happy with the cards performance in VR at the settings I use. Many others haven't been so lucky but I think a lot depends on steam and how quickly they can implement updates to open VR. It took several betas before I could run it reliably as my headset and others depend upon open vr to function properly in Il2.
 
learners permit said:
Yea a VR mod for the original 1946 would be amazing but I doubt we'll ever see that. Overall though I'm very happy with the cards performance in VR at the settings I use. Many others haven't been so lucky but I think a lot depends on steam and how quickly they can implement updates to open VR. It took several betas before I could run it reliably as my headset and others depend upon open vr to function properly in Il2.
Click to expand...
Do you have any opinion on how AMD's 7000 launch drivers and reviews have done in comparison since launch? I would am wanting some solid numbers that are apparently just not available (no one tests and reports. Sadly a PC HW gap that no one is filling) that shows AMD taking the VR game seriously in spite of having powerful HW with very desirable amounts of RAM.
ATM I probably would take a 4070ti over any AMD 7000 card because I know it will excel without grief in VR. From what I have seen so far it is apparent that in VR, Nvidia = a tiered higher based on performance of standard raster gaming as so far that is what VR is (no RT thankfully yet). Maybe even a bit of a bump more! Makes me sad as I am rooting for AMD GFX because of the massive better value IMO.
 
Last edited:
Right now many users are having issues with new hardware and VR on both red and green teams so I would thoroughly research your desired hardware combination and what cards are having issues with said hardware. Even the 4090 is not without issues for some users since launch. Many on open mr forum report tracking lag issues to the point of vr motion sickness with 4000 series cards and are very upset the issues persists from launch. I'm having exactly the same issue as the 4090 cards on my 7900XTX and no one has been able to figure out the issue so far. I've gotten used to it and turn my head slower so it's not so nauseating. Very long thread about the issue. 3000 series cards had vr issues that persisted as long as 6000 series vr issues but folks insist that Nvidia is far superior for vr. I think Nvidia figured out how to optimize display port DSC using non standard methods and it helped with framerates on the higher resolution headsets so they get kudos for that. Frankly vr enthusiasts are always the last to get launch issues addressed because their numbers are few relative to panel users so the vendors generally address vr issues last when it comes to drivers and they know we're used to it by now. Unless you have the patience to wait for driver fixes for a year or so don't rush into it thinking how great the experience will be as you may be unpleasantly surprised.
 
learners permit
https://www.amd.com/en/support/kb/release-notes/rn-rad-win-23-4-2
  • Some virtual reality games or applications may experience lower-than-expected performance on Radeon™ RX 7000 series GPUs.
Click to expand...
AMD admits it has these issues since the first version of the 7 series.

I am using my 4090 with a Quest 2 and Virtual Desktop with a pretty big range of VR games, never have I experienced lag in tracking. Had the 4090 five weeks after launch. All the people I know with a 4 series Nvidia card, do not have these issues nor have I read about it, first time I hear about it.
Seems to be more a Pimax issue than anything else. In the VD Discord the issues with AMD are a lot bigger than Nvidia. No product is perfect unfortunately, but AMD has had so many issues concerning VR. Especially the HEVC streaming bug, been an issue for more than a year.
Can't remember a serious VR issue as big as AMD has had or still has that hasn't been fixed with the next update.

If you have an AMD card now, especially a 6 series card, you can obviously use it for VR, just with an issue here or there. If you are in the market for a new GPU and do some research, I would definitely buy Nvidia if you want the best, or least worst support for VR.

Do I like this fact? That is a whole other point, not at all! But as someone who is playing in VR more than pancake, I have had my share of issues. I enjoy VR so much, I have thrown the 4090 against it and that did the trick for me, finally. Even the 3080 wasn't powerful enough for me, to get to native Quest 2 resolution. That is another part of my choice of GPU. The 7900 even with its bugs fixed, wouldn't be powerful enough for me. Lowering the settings isn't an option for me.
If that is the case for someone buying now, you could go for a 6 series AMD or 3 series Nvidia card. Though you are losing out on the absolute immersion the 4090 can give, which is a choice I understand. Since the card is as expensive as a complete PC with a 980Ti years ago, but unfortunately, it isn't that time anymore price wise. But the tech has come as far as 4K+ resolution capable VR experience, just have to pay a pretty penny for it.
 
Yes I'm aware of the Amd driver release notes no need to point out the obvious. Apparently you didn't take the time to read the entire thread and I don't blame you as you aren't experiencing the issue so why spend the time but other headset users are having issues with it as well. What is the native resolution/Fov on the quest 2 per eye? That device seems to be quite functional across the board as far as vendors go with only very early issues reported that have been rectified via firmware iirc.
 
learners permit said:
Yes I'm aware of the Amd driver release notes no need to point out the obvious. Apparently you didn't take the time to read the entire thread and I don't blame you as you aren't experiencing the issue so why spend the time but other headset users are having issues with it as well. What is the native resolution/Fov on the quest 2 per eye? That device seems to be quite functional across the board as far as vendors go with only very early issues reported that have been rectified via firmware iirc.
Click to expand...
I have read the whole thread, Pimax is not known for its good support and more than a few issues. The better headsets do not have the bigger issues you are talking about. Quest 2, Pico 4, G2, Vive and the Steam Valve all perform perfectly fine on the Nvidia 4 and 3 series.

The Quest has a resolution of 2704x2736 resolution display for each eye or 5408x2736 total. That is including considering the FoV/barrel distortion.

The fact is, not counting headset issues themselves, the Nvidia cards are the better choice at this moment. Again, I am not happy about that, because it costs a lot more than I hoped for, but the fact nonetheless.
 
Maybe I should hook up my Vice Pro 2 to the 7900XTX, been long enough from launch for drivers.

Head motion lag would be about the worst thing for inducing nausea.
 
The fact we do not have a HW site/Channel doing a constant update and testing on VR/GPU after all these years is just sad. It should be completely transparent with clear charts for the user to make a HW decision. The money must not be there.
From little that is out there it is apparent that Nvidia has a distinct advantage in VR performance atm, but I have seen nothing past AMD 7000 series launch.
 
learners permit said:
More instances with various hmds of tracking lag. Just to show I do not BS when I post.
Click to expand...
https://www.reddit.com/r/SteamVR/co...r_rtx_4090_and_vr_tracking_input_latency_lag/

That link is from that link you posted here btw.
Seems to be a SteamVR issue more than anything else and is, annoyingly have to do it every time after a restart.

While there are two people outright complaining about issues, there are always people with issues with any type of card. That doesn't really say anything about the cards in general.
 
Nvidia excels in VR and one example of this is their DSC optimization using non standard methods and working closely with hardware vendors that sell hi res headsets to help them create customized firmware to take advantage of those non standard optimizations. This requires a commitment of resources that Amd has not been able to match historically so yes they will command market share until Amd can match their commitment. I hope that Amd will be able to commit more resources to this aim in the near future and at least achieve parity but only time will tell.
 
funkydmunky said:
The market so sucks atm. We aren't in a minning boom yet prices are lofty still.
I had high hopes for the new AMD 7900 series. They fattened the bus over the 6000 series so there shouldn't be a 4K+ VR drop, and they gave as usual, far more RAM per $ then Nvidia. But for some reason (limited reasourses to get good VR GPU benchmark comparisons) they seem to be quite poor in VR considering their very high specs and high pancake gaming performance (Raster beast for the $)
Ya the 6000 series started out slow in VR as well but from benches I've seen did well to narrow the gap mostly but with same tier Nvidia cards still taking the win by a good notch. Now some benchmarks show 7000 series = or lower then 6000 series in some games. WTF AMD? How can your uber horse power models built with the same RDNA arch regress with all the fat specs?
Now for Nvidia we continually get RAM and bus restricted parts for premium $. That is until you go to the high end and pay extremely high $ for the cards with proper bus speed and RAM. A 4070ti is a pricey card and has that Nvidia VR driver goodness so it will perform, yet that stupid budget 192 bit bus and meager 12GB RAM should sour any VR enthusiast hopes that that card is a good VR investment (still probably the VR go to if that is your budget. Sad!)
If someone wants things to run right with adequate hardware I see the 4080 16GB as the model to get. Yet that damn $! Also it is just a 16GB card which is literally the bare minimum in this day and age. So minimal future proofing and it is so costly in comparison if you do play 2D titles as well.
All in all what a shit show peeps! And it isn't like there are many/any resources that focus on this as VR from a GPU perspective is extraordinarily hard to come by. AMD could fix their VR drivers making the 7900XTX the go to for the $, but how would we know?
[H]VR forums are pretty meek these days. Not much community or input happening, but if you have any good likes, sites, or reviews to share then please do.
Stay thirsty and keep your goggles on!
Click to expand...
I feel your pain. I really wanted the 7900 XT to work out, but I kept getting PC reboots and VR working erratically and I returned it just before the end of my return window. All in all I just felt saving my time researching and debugging to play VR was worth a few hundred more. I grudgingly bought the 4080 as opposed to waiting until next year for the 5000 series who knows when. Its sucks to be pushed into a corner like this, but it is what it is I guess. The 4080 seems to be just fine so far besides that stupid new connector which is a hassle. I had to take apart the cable just to get it to be able to fit inside my case. Overall it seems the 4080 is the right choice in a world of bad choices. LOL.
 
emailcraigs said:
I feel your pain. I really wanted the 7900 XT to work out, but I kept getting PC reboots and VR working erratically and I returned it just before the end of my return window. All in all I just felt saving my time researching and debugging to play VR was worth a few hundred more. I grudgingly bought the 4080 as opposed to waiting until next year for the 5000 series who knows when. Its sucks to be pushed into a corner like this, but it is what it is I guess. The 4080 seems to be just fine so far besides that stupid new connector which is a hassle. I had to take apart the cable just to get it to be able to fit inside my case. Overall it seems the 4080 is the right choice in a world of bad choices. LOL.
Click to expand...
I begrudgingly bought the 2080 when there were no other logical options. I feel I my have to go 4080 for the same reasons.
May I ask when you returned the 7900XT? Was it before the VR driver update that is said to fix issues? I vowed not to go under 16GB on my next GPU and Nvidia is making that very expensive.
 
emailcraigs said:
I feel your pain. I really wanted the 7900 XT to work out, but I kept getting PC reboots and VR working erratically and I returned it just before the end of my return window. All in all I just felt saving my time researching and debugging to play VR was worth a few hundred more. I grudgingly bought the 4080 as opposed to waiting until next year for the 5000 series who knows when. Its sucks to be pushed into a corner like this, but it is what it is I guess. The 4080 seems to be just fine so far besides that stupid new connector which is a hassle. I had to take apart the cable just to get it to be able to fit inside my case. Overall it seems the 4080 is the right choice in a world of bad choices. LOL.
Click to expand...
That's a shame, the 7900 XTX has been awesome in VR for me, especially since the performance update. Alyx and Skyrim VR with mods have been a blast.
 
The July 2023 driver fixed all sorts of VR performance and bug issues for me and now performance is dramatically improved and not far behind a 4080. Really was beginning to wonder if it was a driver issue and not an arch issue. Now I can enjoy my sims 18.25 Mpixels and higher if I want to push my power target above 330-350 watts. Overall I'm very happy with the results from the 7900XTX in both vr and monitor game play so yes it was worth the wait for me.
 
learners permit said:
The July 2023 driver fixed all sorts of VR performance and bug issues for me and now performance is dramatically improved and not far behind a 4080. Really was beginning to wonder if it was a driver issue and not an arch issue. Now I can enjoy my sims 18.25 Mpixels and higher if I want to push my power target above 330-350 watts. Overall I'm very happy with the results from the 7900XTX in both vr and monitor game play so yes it was worth the wait for me.
Click to expand...
Hey thanks for adding. Both you and Decko87's opinions are appreciated. It is hard to find any actual user experience. AMD VR has zero reporting. I would love for a hardware site to give me real Nvidia vs. AMD deep VR benches but it appears to be more aloof then a unicorn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top