Vr may require 7x vid cards

O

oROEchimaru

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
4,662
Most likely high end stuff that exists today that peeps cant afford. Maybe in another year... venturebeat.com/2015/12/30/to-handle-vr-graphics-gaming-pcs-have-to-be-7-times-more-powerful/view-all/
 
The graphics cards need to be 7x more powerful, not 7x as many. Not only that, they state the cards need 7x the processing power per what Nvidia wants to do with VR in the future, not what is possible with VR now.

That processing power leap could happen within a few generations and easily attainable soon with the rate everything is advancing.
 
7x means at least 3 generations away for a single card solution.
 
meh... I've yet to see a game worth playing since Diablo 3's release.

The only games I play are D3 and BF1942. ...both of which the lowest of the current generation cards will run just fine.
 
4330thgink said:
meh... I've yet to see a game worth playing since Diablo 3's release.

The only games I play are D3 and BF1942. ...both of which the lowest of the current generation cards will run just fine.
Click to expand...

How active are the BF1942 servers these days?
 
4330thgink said:
meh... I've yet to see a game worth playing since Diablo 3's release.

The only games I play are D3 and BF1942. ...both of which the lowest of the current generation cards will run just fine.
Click to expand...

Is bf1942 still alive? !
 
4330thgink said:
Not many servers left.

The few that are are pretty active throughout the day. Late evenings they tend to be inactive. (day/evening relative to United States hours)
Click to expand...

This is fantastic news! I used to play it competitively (SECON.US).

I miss those days. My 9700 Pro on an NEC Multisync LCD1765 1280x1024, Barton 2500+, WD 80GB 8MB cache, 512MB DDR333 cl 2.5, and a full Danger Den loop. The hardware scene was so much more fun back then. LANwar, MML, basement LAN's. WoW ruined it all! Used to be a LAN every weekend, and new valid hardware every month. Shit, I wanna go back to 2002
 
Oh, and let's not forget about Farcry, Desert Combat mod for BF1942
 
If you were to buy a VR headset today, you would unquestionably need a pair of 980Tis. Even then, graphical settings would need to be turned down/off. Those massive hardware requirements, and the costs associated with them, are a major barrier to mainstream VR adoption. Plus, multi-GPU is seeing reduced developer and vendor support with every new game release it seems.

Simply put, there is no single GPU on the market that can run the latest games at the high-resolutions and the locked frame rates that are inherently needed to ensure immersion and prevent motion sickness when using VR.

We're all aware of how quickly graphics tech moves, so maybe in three or four years VR will become viable. Personally, I feel VR is a fad that grabs headlines and Kickstarter cash, but won't remain on consumers' radar for the length of time needed for GPU technology to catch up.

I don't know anything about BF1942.
 
I will have to check the bf1942 servers. I have the game installed through origin. Does that version work for multiplayer? I thought I checked when I installed it in origin and there were no servers online.
 
crusty_juggler said:
If you were to buy a VR headset today, you would unquestionably need a pair of 980Tis. Even then, graphical settings would need to be turned down/off. Those massive hardware requirements, and the costs associated with them, are a major barrier to mainstream VR adoption. Plus, multi-GPU is seeing reduced developer and vendor support with every new game release it seems.

Simply put, there is no single GPU on the market that can run the latest games at the high-resolutions and the locked frame rates that are inherently needed to ensure immersion and prevent motion sickness when using VR.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you guys think that VR requires insane amount of GPU power. It doesn't. I'm wondering how many of you have actually used an Oculus or one of the other headsets. Current VR headsets are barely 1080p res. The OP's article is about future VR and to enable photo realistic graphics within VR.

Most of the motion sickness issues are due to either lack of proper motion tracking or a lag in the motion tracking, not the amount of GPU power.

I had a friend of mine that was extremely interested in the Oculus Rift. He bought both the Dev Kit 1 and Dev Kit 2. I played around on it all the time and he only had a GTX770 with 4GB of VRAM. Dev Kit 2 was running 960x1080 resolution per eye, easily handled by a GTX770 at the time. 960 x 2 = 1920...so the headset was running full 1080p.

I got extremely motion sick on the Dev Kit 1. Going to the Dev kit 2 made all the difference in the world. There was zero lag and proper motion tracking. It sensed how my head was tilted at any point and displayed the picture correctly. Playing Elite Dangerous on it was a blast, I could crane my neck around and see almost every nook and crevice of the cockpit from any angle.

That being said, the dev kit 2 still needed a slight increase in resolution as it still had a slight "screen door" affect (meaning you could see the blackness between pixels being that close to the screen). At most it might need around 1440p as I doubt 4K will be necessary. 1440p is within reach right now on single cards. Even Oculus themselves recommend a single GTX970 or AMD 290 for when the product releases in Q1 2016.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/t...pc-sdk-0-6-released-and-mobile-vr-jam-voting/
 
Last edited:
CaptNumbNutz said:
I don't know where you guys think that VR requires insane amount of GPU power. It doesn't. I'm wondering how many of you have actually used an Oculus or one of the other headsets. Current VR headsets are barely 1080p res. The OP's article is about future VR and to enable photo realistic graphics within VR.

Most of the motion sickness issues are due to either lack of proper motion tracking or a lag in the motion tracking, not the amount of GPU power.

I had a friend of mine that was extremely interested in the Oculus Rift. He bought both the Dev Kit 1 and Dev Kit 2. I played around on it all the time and he only had a GTX770 with 4GB of VRAM. Dev Kit 2 was running 960x1080 resolution per eye, easily handled by a GTX770 at the time. 960 x 2 = 1920...so the headset was running full 1080p.

I got extremely motion sick on the Dev Kit 1. Going to the Dev kit 2 made all the difference in the world. There was zero lag and proper motion tracking. It sensed how my head was tilted at any point and displayed the picture correctly. Playing Elite Dangerous on it was a blast, I could crane my neck around and see almost every nook and crevice of the cockpit from any angle.

That being said, the dev kit 2 still needed a slight increase in resolution as it still had a slight "screen door" affect (meaning you could see the blackness between pixels being that close to the screen). At most it might need around 1440p as I doubt 4K will be necessary. 1440p is within reach right now on single cards. Even Oculus themselves recommend a single GTX970 or AMD 290 for when the product releases in Q1 2016.
https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/t...pc-sdk-0-6-released-and-mobile-vr-jam-voting/
Click to expand...

you are 100% spot on. Though I think retail rift is still 1080P which is shit. It really needs at least 1440P of not higher :/

Pascal will run it just fine.
 
mnewxcv said:
I will have to check the bf1942 servers. I have the game installed through origin. Does that version work for multiplayer? I thought I checked when I installed it in origin and there were no servers online.
Click to expand...
Please see the link below for the details. Also you should download both the Forgotten Hope, Forgotten Hope: Secret Weapon, and Desert Combat mods (the DC mod required PB running to play on the one server still running that mod). I usually play a few times a month and there are about a dozen or so servers that still have people playing on a regular basis. Your best time for finding people to play are the weekends during the early afternoon in the US.
http://forum.bf1942.sk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1813
 
Yeah, for current VR you really only need a system powerful enough to render on two monitors (one per eye)

There is nothing about VR technology that somehow drastically increases the need for GPU power over a capable PC.

I haven't been able to read the article, but maybe they are talking 7x more powerful than current consoles?
 
It needs to be capable mostly for the fact that VR at 30fps is a nauseating experience. Most people can't handle it longer than 5 minutes before they want to throw up. Most people need +120fps for the experience to be comfortable. Current gen cards can't handle 2x 2560x1440 monitors running a 3D game over 120fps.
 
AltTabbins said:
It needs to be capable mostly for the fact that VR at 30fps is a nauseating experience. Most people can't handle it longer than 5 minutes before they want to throw up. Most people need +120fps for the experience to be comfortable. Current gen cards can't handle 2x 2560x1440 monitors running a 3D game over 120fps.
Click to expand...

Whose talking about running it at 30fps?

Really doesn't have to ve above 60fps, as long as the motion response isn't laggy.

Also, I'm not convinced we really need to go to 1440p per eye either. Some of the "screen door" effect can be mitigated by just using different screen process that doesn't result in significant spacing between pixels.

I mean, higher resolution is of course going to be better, but I think it can be good at 1080p
 
I have a dk2 and a gtx 760, most games/demos run fine on it that were made to work on it. However there are some that can't hit that magic 75fps consistently and it can be something that makes you sick.

Most developers seem to have kept this in mind and have made the games less graphically demanding.
 
Quartz-1 said:
Will the adaptive sync technologies help VR at all?
Click to expand...

Not at all, it isn't about the content not being in sync, it is about the image lag generating nausea due to it confusing our brain since it is used to the "higher framerate" of the natural visual cortex system.

In other words the small different between your head movement and the visual response triggers the vertigo, the smaller that difference is the more seamless the experience should feel, and that is why 75-90 Hz are the ideal minimum.
 
I am curious as to 7x more powerful than what? the average Gaming PC. So less than a 970, as he talks about needing at least a 970 (300$ gpu).

So for most of us here, VR should be easy, as I know my 980ti does laps around a 970.

Now to put that to the test, I have the Oculus DK2, and run it on my 980ti, at this time, I have yet to have a game cause me problems with frame rate. Even on my old 780 GPU. My 780 could not comfortably run Elite with super sampling, the 980 Ti does to my eyes.

To further put a cramp in this article (which now reads like a sales pitch for nVidia) the elephant in the room, those dastardly under powered consoles.

If they are going to even attempt to run Oculus, then the GPU power required will be limited by the crap in the XBone and PS4.

So again, we get to shitty ports hampering PC performance, which as things get more powerful matters less and less (I ran Arkham Knight without issue from Day one on the 980 ti, which I chalk up to just a matter of horse power overcoming poor programming).

So, long story short (TLDR) VR will be limited by the consoles, and driven by the early adopter PC gamer like myself. Couple that with the new GPU's coming out later this year, I have no worries.
 
I've got a DK2 and a 690. Even with this old card, VR works. I have to turn a lot of settings down to get a good framerate, but it does work. I thought about getting a Titan X for it, but figure that it's late enough in the cycle right now that I'll just wait for the Rift consumer version and get whatever the ultra-high-end single card solution is then.
 
schizrade said:
No, 2160×1200 at 90Hz split over dual displays.

http://attackofthefanboy.com/news/oculus-rift-recommended-pc-specs-and-final-resolution-revealed/

Yes Pascal will run it fine.
Click to expand...

This is good news as i'll be waiting to jump on the pascal platform upon release and VR. But i question the initial success of the product without big name games being released for it (there could be, i just haven't done much research of the product as of yet, but have always wanted to experience an MMO like FFXIV in VR)
 
AltTabbins said:
It needs to be capable mostly for the fact that VR at 30fps is a nauseating experience. Most people can't handle it longer than 5 minutes before they want to throw up. Most people need +120fps for the experience to be comfortable. Current gen cards can't handle 2x 2560x1440 monitors running a 3D game over 120fps.
Click to expand...

I don't know where this misconception comes from that VR = 2x resolution. IT'S not, it's the same as one monitor taken in two parts. You don't need 2x gpu power, you need exactly the same as playing on one monitor.
 
M76 said:
I don't know where this misconception comes from that VR = 2x resolution. IT'S not, it's the same as one monitor taken in two parts. You don't need 2x gpu power, you need exactly the same as playing on one monitor.
Click to expand...

Isn't it one display that's twice as large, though?

As in something like 7600 by 1440?
 
RazorWind said:
Isn't it one display that's twice as large, though?

As in something like 7600 by 1440?
Click to expand...

No, it's either one display that's the same resolution, or two displays with half horizontal resolution each. Googling it reveals that the production oculus will have two oled displays, with a combined resolution of 2160x1200, so that's two 1080x1200 displays.

That's even less than 1440p , so the officially recommended GTX970 is pretty much accurate. As it has barely more pixels to render than with 1080p

7600x1440 would be like robocop goggles.
 
Right, I've made this same mistake before when calculating resolutions. It's not twice as large.

However, and I hate to keep harping on this, it's not the resolution that's problematic, it's the extremely fast refresh rates. We're not talking about high capped refresh rates in the 100+ Hz range, we're talking about high locked refresh rates.

Frame rate fluctuations in a VR environment break immersion and cause motion sickness. We have a long way to go until we see affordable, single-GPU solutions capable of playing modern games, at modern VR resolutions, with modern graphical settings at a locked 100+ FPS.

I foresee VR being used for entertainment and educational/training purposes in the short term, with gaming becoming viable several years down the road.
 
crusty_juggler said:
If you were to buy a VR headset today, you would unquestionably need a pair of 980Tis. Even then, graphical settings would need to be turned down/off. Those massive hardware requirements, and the costs associated with them, are a major barrier to mainstream VR adoption. Plus, multi-GPU is seeing reduced developer and vendor support with every new game release it seems.

Simply put, there is no single GPU on the market that can run the latest games at the high-resolutions and the locked frame rates that are inherently needed to ensure immersion and prevent motion sickness when using VR.

We're all aware of how quickly graphics tech moves, so maybe in three or four years VR will become viable. Personally, I feel VR is a fad that grabs headlines and Kickstarter cash, but won't remain on consumers' radar for the length of time needed for GPU technology to catch up.

I don't know anything about BF1942.
Click to expand...
Except SLi doesn't work with the Oculus at the moment.

crusty_juggler said:
Right, I've made this same mistake before when calculating resolutions. It's not twice as large.

However, and I hate to keep harping on this, it's not the resolution that's problematic, it's the extremely fast refresh rates. We're not talking about high capped refresh rates in the 100+ Hz range, we're talking about high locked refresh rates.

Frame rate fluctuations in a VR environment break immersion and cause motion sickness. We have a long way to go until we see affordable, single-GPU solutions capable of playing modern games, at modern VR resolutions, with modern graphical settings at a locked 100+ FPS.

I foresee VR being used for entertainment and educational/training purposes in the short term, with gaming becoming viable several years down the road.
Click to expand...

Palmer Luckey is putting a 970 or 290 in his personal Oculus rig. I think it's safe to say they're committed to making the recommended spec an enjoyable experience.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
Except SLi doesn't work with the Oculus at the moment.
Click to expand...
I thought this was something that was fixed with the high-end 9xx series nVidia cards? I'm pretty sure nVidia has something specifically for using one card for rendering the left half of the screen, and one for rendering the right for VR.
 
TeeJayHoward said:
I thought this was something that was fixed with the high-end 9xx series nVidia cards? I'm pretty sure nVidia has something specifically for using one card for rendering the left half of the screen, and one for rendering the right for VR.
Click to expand...

that feature has yet to work in a game though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top