SteamVR Performance Test

980TI Classy stock .ROM
6700K 4.6ghz

 

Made a run with my old system.
Gigabyte 280X stock clocks
i7 3770K 4.5ghz

 

oooh, I'll try this when I get home

 

5820K @ 4.4GHz
980Ti @ 1270/1925
PC2800 DDR4

 

CPU Overclocked to 4.2 ghz. Everything else at stock speed.

 

but but but I thought you needed a Nasa supercomputer with sli 1280ti's to be able to run vr.

 

Well, here's a GTX 970 result. My system is technically just beneath the requirements for Occulus Rift.

 

err.....hmm....wtf. This is mine....and I have a 290X....

 

so much for windows 10 being scary, 100% of you are using it.

 

What drivers are you running, try running the test again with the least amount of background task. but for sure is a bug, just compare your result with the OP result which is a 290, you should at least be in that same range as he is OC'd.

 

of course, everything it's just better in W10 when talking about gaming. Games run better, faster, smoother..

 

slight oc on cpu/gpu.

 

I'm not sure my system can handle it.... (SLI 980Ti / 32GB DDR4 3000)

 

Running Crimson 16.1.1 hotfix, multiple passes done with and without CF enabled (I know it's not being used even enabled), and nothing going on in the background.

Good for you...VR doesn't use/recommend SLI/CF (yet) due to added latency and unless you're running VMs or media editing, about half of your RAM never gets utilized.

 

You haven't a clue what I use my system for...and oh I thought this was the [H]ardForums not the SoftForums....this is an enthusiast site right?!? There is little room for petty jealousy here kiddo.

 

Looks like someone's jelly.

NVIDIA is working on a solution called VR SLI and has beta support for it in the current drivers. It assigns one GPU to each eye, basically.

 

Intel i7-980X
Windows 7 64-bit
12Gb RAM
Nvidia GTX 970

 

Of course my PC is ready for VR, just don't know if I am ready for it yet, especially with dat price tag

 

You're right I don't but there are very few use cases (as I pointed out) that actually benefit from that amount of RAM, it's like bragging about getting to drive a Ferrari in a parking lot. Also as I stated VR doesn't support SLI/CF (yet) so there is zero advantage, and I find it petty, immature, and annoying of people who feel the need to brag about their computers when doing so contributes zero to the conversation. Congrats on the girthiness of your e-penis

I'm actually running a pair of 290Xs but I didn't mention that outside the context of troubleshooting. Why, because it doesn't serve any useful purpose here.

 

My system uses 17GB+ editing small videos. It's not a stretch others might do the same. Personally, I think a little extra memory makes your system more stable.

A bit more on topic I think we've seen enough 980ti benches.

I still need to see a VR compatible game that I actually care about and some reviews of the actual equipment. Wouldn't mind 1440 screens either. People talk about how you can see the space between pixels.

 

I think what set him off was the beginning of the post:

Could've been sarcasm I guess, but given the results we've seen in here before that post, it just came off as snarky.

 

Is your CPU at stock speed? and 2x 980ti's should have higher score.

 

Multi-GPU isn't supported atm so 0% scaling. And from the looks of it the 980 Ti was left at stock.

Here's my run for reference:
4930K @ 4.5GHz
980 Ti @ 1530/7800



And just for shits, tested again at 1580/7800 and performance improved by a whooping 1.64% lol

 

Was there some weird phrasing in my post, I specifically mentioned media editing as an exception. I'd agree that RAM helps with system stability but there is a point of no return. I've got 16GB in my system for the occasional VM or two but I know if I'm not running a VM, the majority of it goes unused. Right now I have a little more than 13GB completely free, I'd be surprised if anything other than those specific use cases warrants more than 8GB, even for the hardcore gamer. Though that may change once KSP properly runs in x64 with mods...

What kind of games are you interested in playing? The space between the pixels, referred to as the Screen Door Effect (SDE), is supposed to be nearly eliminated in the consumer Rift/Vive, though I haven't personally been able to demo one of them. I have a DK2 and it's pretty noticeable for me in racing games or anything that requires focusing on "distant" objects. I'm optimistic as I have the Gear VR with a Galaxy S6 Edge+ and, while the SDE is noticeable, its definitely a lot less and if I'm watching a movie or something with movement, it's hard to pick up. I'm confident that, if the initial releases are well received and we see a second generation of VR devices in 2-3 years, they will have the issue completely resolved.

 

Runs a $650 GPU with a $1000 CPU on a mainboard/RAM platforms that STARTS at $500.

"Occulus is to 'spensive!!!"

 

That's the tough part - I think a Doom compatible with VR would be awesome.

Actually I didn't realize there were so many:
List of games with Oculus Rift support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am thinking with the next gen and SDE resolved is when I might bite.

 

I think 16 GB is the sweet spot at the moment for Gaming. its just one hair past 'too much'. I could imagine 8GB being a BIT limited in 1 out of 50 gaming scenarios. 16 eliminates that to 0.

Me? I run 32, and go over 16 on a daily basis.

 

There's also a more recent list here. VorpX adds support to a lot of games as well...I believe there's a doom port out there too.

Doing what?

 

Ok, I knew I was ready, but the wait for the VR hardware is killing me...

 

3D artwork. Not gaming.

In short: I agree with you. Gaming = 16GB sweet spot.

 

Specs in sig

 

Again, media editing...I said that twice before now, lol.

 

What is going on with the 290s in this thread!? They should be AT LEAST faster than a 960?

 

There's something buggy with the test, or a requirement we don't know about.

Post #1 shows an "R9 290" that is "Ready", post #9 shows an "R9 290x" that is "Capable", and post #35 shows a "R9 200 / HD 7900 Series" which is "Not Ready".

That or something with drivers.

Here's a HD 7850, which is completely "Not capable" but a Phenom II X4 830 is good to go?

 

Just to clear up my post (35) it is running a 7970 (non ghz)

 

a 7970 should at LEAST be medium. its still a pretty capable GPU.

 

i5-3570K (4.4Ghz)
GTX770 2GB (stock)