Anyone getting ready for VR?

Hey

 

VR Right now is at a VERY early stage with only low end experiences avaliable to the consumer market like those phone headsets from Samsung and Zeiss but with Oculus, Valve, HTC and Sony jumping into the wagon soon, it's gonna get interesting. And we've seen what Oculus is capable of and HTC Vive seems promising as well, specially coming from Valve. Is anyone looking forward to getting any VR solution?

 

I've thought about getting either the consumer Rift of the HTC Vive when they come out. I'm planning on upgrading my PC and since a GTX 970 is what is said to be the minimum for VR right now, that's what I'm getting on the video side as it's also the best I can afford and maybe later on when VR is really worth it throw in another GTX 970 to get that high def high refresh rate awesome experience. I hope an i5 4460 or 4690 will be enough and I'll be getting 8 gigs of ram. I know that's all pretty standard nowadays but I'm coming from a Core 2 Duo E7500 and a HD6750. What's your opinion on the other headsets? Many people are also looking at the option of acquiring high end phones to use with those headsets as phones such as the S6 Edge and iPhone 6S+ have lots of power and great screens.

I would go for the Vive personally... Open API, better hardware, included Steam Controller... Well, vertically split Steam Controller with a couple extra sensors.

 

I also wouldn't use a GTX 970 for anything... Memory management for the hardware of the 970 sucks, even Nvidia acknowledged it. I'd save for a 980, or dual 960's.

Personally, I'd skip the 970 for the time being. Even Nvidia has officially recommended for 1080p VR a minimum of a gtx 980 GPU. http://www.tweaktown.com/news/47539/nvidia-recommends-gtx-980-ti-1080p-90fps-vr-gaming/index.html

 

Granted, VR would probably be okay with a 970, the 970 has a technical issue with VRAM utilization (basically framerates tank after going above 3.5GB useage). I recall reading earlier this month that the 900 series in general may not be that great for VR outside of GameWorksVR, and that it might be worth waiting for the next GPU release. Apparently the next nvidia GPUs will feature HBMv2 and go up to 16GB on a single GPU. Not to mention one of the Oculus Rift guys, David Kanter, has mentioned in a podcast recently that VR on nvidia GPUs could be "disastrous" due to supposedly poor async compute performance.

 

If I were to get a phone for VR, it'd be the new Sony Xperia with the 4K display. I'm basically waiting for those kinds of display to enter the VR realm before jumping in.

I'm aware that I'd end up with 3.5 gbs of ram instead of 4 but I'll have to read further on those issues on the GPUs. How's the AMD side looking in that regard? I've had funky experiences with AMD drivers and cards but i'd be willing to try a mid-high end card for this build if the value/performance for VR justify it. This all shakes up my plan .

 

 

My problem with phones is that I HATE big phones. The biggest I've owned is Sony Xperia Z3 Compact with a 4,6 720p screen and that was still huge to me as my ideal size is the iPhone 5's. So Using a big 5' 1080p phone is still to foreign to me, much less a 5,5 4K phone. I grabbed an iPhone 6 one of these days and thought it was the Plus version just by how massive it appeared to me. That is way too much screen real state on my pocket. I'm actually thinking about upgrading to the Z5 as right now I'm rocking an iPhone 5, if Pokemon Go is as good as it looks I might end up upgrading, those high end Xperias are a lovely thing.

The AMD cards don't have the same hardware issues, but the drivers do suck. From what I hear, just wait for a next gen card before building for VR. (Nvidia should end up being the best, if the planned specs come to fruition)

The AMD cards don't have the same hardware issues, but the drivers do suck. From what I hear, just wait for a next gen card before building for VR. (Nvidia should end up being the best, if the planned specs come to fruition)

 

I guess I'll just build my system with a GTX 960 to play everything current and maybe add another if the performance of the SLI is comparable or better to a single GTX 980 for VR. If not I'll just sell it and suck it upo and buy a GTX 1070ti or whatever they come up with. But theoretically and according to nvidia's own schemes, if the GTX 980 is enough for VR, the 960 SLI, provided with 4 gb cards instead of the regular 2gb, should perform well.

The AMD cards don't have the same hardware issues, but the drivers do suck. From what I hear, just wait for a next gen card before building for VR. (Nvidia should end up being the best, if the planned specs come to fruition)

 

I guess I'll just build my system with a GTX 960 to play everything current and maybe add another if the performance of the SLI is comparable or better to a single GTX 980 for VR. If not I'll just sell it and suck it upo and buy a GTX 1070ti or whatever they come up with. But theoretically and according to nvidia's own schemes, if the GTX 980 is enough for VR, the 960 SLI, provided with 4 gb cards instead of the regular 2gb, should perform well.

 

The performance of SLI is going to largely depend on how well the game scales with SLI, assuming the games work with it at all (some games benefit from SLI). Nvidia just released drivers supporting VR SLI, so at this point the thing to be looking for is whether the developers update their titles to work with VR SLI.

 

Personally, I don't recommend SLI just due to the many drawbacks versus using a single powerful GPU, but it's all about whatever floats your boat. Just keep up with the tech and reviews as VR approaches the consumer space and you should be fine with whatever choice you make.

The performance of SLI is going to largely depend on how well the game scales with SLI, assuming the games work with it at all (some games benefit from SLI). Nvidia just released drivers supporting VR SLI, so at this point the thing to be looking for is whether the developers update their titles to work with VR SLI.

+1

 

Personally, I don't recommend SLI just due to the many drawbacks versus using a single powerful GPU, but it's all about whatever floats your boat. Just keep up with the tech and reviews as VR approaches the consumer space and you should be fine with whatever choice you make.

I have no recommendation against SLI, as the performance drop between 960's and a single 980 is minimal, but you can usually pay around 3/4 the price for the SLI setup. (provided the 980 isn't on a special price sale) This of course is providing the games you use it with have decent SLI support. (the ones that don't tend to have an AMD logo video when they start up)

I can't wait until 2016. The OCULUS is going to be sweeeet! I'm buying it day one.

After seeing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXMoEnNpbCQ I am really excited for the HTC Vive, I think it will be even better than the Oculus Rift

I plan to upgrade to one of the Pascal cards when they come out, which I'm guessing won't be too far behind the Oculus release, but who knows, it seems like everyone keeps pushing dates back. I'm still on my 660 Ti, I almost got the 970 last year, but reports of coil whine scared me off from it.

 

I would consider AMD, but I've seen better antialiasing compatibility from Nvidia, plus they've announced the "auto stereo" feature which could bring VR support to a ton of older games, which I would love. I can't say I'm fond of some of the business practices Nvidia is doing, but I care too much about some of the features they have over AMD.

Well, looking at the specs for the Pascal cards, it appears the system should be capable of directly accessing the GPU memory for use as fast system RAM... Whether that will be something anyone actually implements... I hope they do. (80BG/s communication rate beats most standard system RAM)

Well, looking at the specs for the Pascal cards, it appears the system should be capable of directly accessing the GPU memory for use as fast system RAM... Whether that will be something anyone actually implements... I hope they do. (80BG/s communication rate beats most standard system RAM)

They're going to have a die shrink and an architecture change, the CEO was saying it can have 10x the performance of Maxwell, it should be pretty huge. Now, because I'm cynical, my guess is it CAN be that fast, but they'll just make sure it's just 15% faster than whatever AMD's offerings are, and just trickle down upgrades over several years.

Well, looking at the specs for the Pascal cards, it appears the system should be capable of directly accessing the GPU memory for use as fast system RAM... Whether that will be something anyone actually implements... I hope they do. (80BG/s communication rate beats most standard system RAM)

They're going to have a die shrink and an architecture change, the CEO was saying it can have 10x the performance of Maxwell, it should be pretty huge. Now, because I'm cynical, my guess is it CAN be that fast, but they'll just make sure it's just 15% faster than whatever AMD's offerings are, and just trickle down upgrades over several years.

I'm not quite as cynical... I'm guessing 20%.

So, with the preorders for the rift being opened, how's everyone feeling on the price point? At 600 USD, you get a rift, a few games, an xbox one controller, and a remote. Definitely more than what was being thrown around last fall, which was a price point in the 300-400 USD range, but is that still something you'd be willing to invest for what is, at time of writing, a novelty?

 

Also, since we've been discussing GPUs for VR in this thread, it appears the rift requires a minimum of either a GTX 970 from green team or a R9 290 from the red team. Makes sense given the high resolution of the Rift's display, which hopefully will eliminate the screen door effect observed on the dev kits.

 

Personally, I became more interested in the Vive than the Rift when we started hearing more about it, but if the headsets sit around this price point, especially given a leak that the PS4 VR set may cost ~800USD, not to mention the horsepower the companies are claiming you'll need to run the sets, I'll be reserving any kind of investment until we see more hardware maturity from both GPU and headsets. I'd also be curious to see if we'll see a separate Rift purchase options for just the headset and how much that'll bring down the price.

So, with the preorders for the rift being opened, how's everyone feeling on the price point? At 600 USD, you get a rift, a few games, an xbox one controller, and a remote. Definitely more than what was being thrown around last fall, which was a price point in the 300-400 USD range, but is that still something you'd be willing to invest for what is, at time of writing, a novelty?

 

Also, since we've been discussing GPUs for VR in this thread, it appears the rift requires a minimum of either a GTX 970 from green team or a R9 290 from the red team. Makes sense given the high resolution of the Rift's display, which hopefully will eliminate the screen door effect observed on the dev kits.

 

Personally, I became more interested in the Vive than the Rift when we started hearing more about it, but if the headsets sit around this price point, especially given a leak that the PS4 VR set may cost ~800USD, not to mention the horsepower the companies are claiming you'll need to run the sets, I'll be reserving any kind of investment until we see more hardware maturity from both GPU and headsets. I'd also be curious to see if we'll see a separate Rift purchase options for just the headset and how much that'll bring down the price.

 

About the rift price - its sounds somewhat reasonable for the moment. I wouldn't get it at this price because I'm not in a hurry. Its a new tech and early adopters always pays premium, thats the way it is. About them saying it will be around 400 or whatever - its just bad PR, they fucked up that part. Wait a few years, there will be new models, prices will drop. Nobody said it will be a product for the masses from day 1.

So, with the preorders for the rift being opened, how's everyone feeling on the price point?

I know someone who has access to the design specs of the headsets... The actual value of the hardware used is under $120. That means they are charging ~$480 just for assembly, which I feel is totally absurd. These headsets are only really worth ~$300, not double that.

There's been some "news" recently that Pascal is currently problematic (Not that I trust news like this with my life): http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-trouble/

 

I still don't know if they're going to implement HBM like they said they were, or should I say 3D VRAM. Some say they're just going to use GDDR5.

 

It's certainly going to be a game changer once games start using DirectX 12, that is WHEN they're going to use it... We're already at the point where graphics cards have DirectX 12 feature sets but just can't use them. It's like having a big block Chevy V8 with a Blower on top but no supercharger... Well that's more of an analogy you'd use for a lack of overclocking ability, but you get the idea. It's something that's missing from the equation.

 

Then you have this crap: http://www.droid-life.com/2016/01/12/report-htc-vive-cost/

 

The news just sours the milk in my cereal at this point.

 

I feel jaded knowing that everything we want in this world that could potentially give us a nice enjoyable and enthusiastic experience gets rained on by news... And lack of horsepower to gallop.

So, with the preorders for the rift being opened, how's everyone feeling on the price point?

I know someone who has access to the design specs of the headsets... The actual value of the hardware used is under $120. That means they are charging ~$480 just for assembly, which I feel is totally absurd. These headsets are only really worth ~$300, not double that.

 

Yeah, that sounds about right. I hope we won't continue to see smartphone-esque pricing schemes with VR, and it doesn't help that the rift is coming to market without a competitor present.

 

There's been some "news" recently that Pascal is currently problematic (Not that I trust news like this with my life): http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-trouble/

 

Any news from WCCFtech needs to be taken with a grain of salt, as they report the news like they're skeet shooting. A lot of rumors and news we've seen from them doesn't pan out, though that's not to say they're always wrong.

 

That being said, there are shipping reports leaked showing Nvidia GPUs using GDDR5X RAM instead of HBM, but I suspect the HBM will be reserved for their higher end cards and won't be seen in the next gen equivalents to the 970 and lower. Like how AMD did it with their HBM-equipped cards. Who knows, AMD might be the better option for a VR GPU when the new cards from both teams are released. We'll have to wait to see what the performance looks like.

There's been some "news" recently that Pascal is currently problematic (Not that I trust news like this with my life): http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-trouble/

 

I still don't know if they're going to implement HBM like they said they were, or should I say 3D VRAM. Some say they're just going to use GDDR5.

 

It's certainly going to be a game changer once games start using DirectX 12, that is WHEN they're going to use it... We're already at the point where graphics cards have DirectX 12 feature sets but just can't use them. It's like having a big block Chevy V8 with a Blower on top but no supercharger... Well that's more of an analogy you'd use for a lack of overclocking ability, but you get the idea. It's something that's missing from the equation.

 

Then you have this crap: http://www.droid-life.com/2016/01/12/report-htc-vive-cost/

 

The news just sours the milk in my cereal at this point.

 

I feel jaded knowing that everything we want in this world that could potentially give us a nice enjoyable and enthusiastic experience gets rained on by news... And lack of horsepower to gallop.

Urg, I hope the Pascal stuff isn't delayed too badly. As for DirectX 12, I think adoption will be slow. They're linking it to Windows 10, it's the same crap with DirectX 10. DirectX 9 worked for Windows XP and 9x. We had DX9-only games in under a year after release. DirectX 10 required Vista. We didn't have DX10-only games until 3 years later, but things didn't really start abandoning DX9 until 6 years later. Game developers don't like shutting out potential buyers, but that's what happens when it's linked to the OS.