LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.There's a "big challenge as far as the computing power that's required," says Nvidia exec.
Read more.There's a "big challenge as far as the computing power that's required," says Nvidia exec.
Aren't they shooting themselves in the foot with this? Saying you need 700% more performance might put people off bothering for another 3/4 years at least. There numbers are massaged at best. 1080p @ 30 fps is capable by entry level GPUs these days. Looking at the kind of handware gaming VR adopters will likely have, we need to see 2x to 3x current performance from a single £250-300 single card before an acceptable resolution and fps will be consistently achieved in AAA titles. That said if the games are simpler current hardware would suffice.
I'd personally prefer to see a high res screen implemented in the VR sets now, but that isn't happening so I'm pondering avoiding the first gen of VR headsets until the resolution and hardware improves to meet expectation.
I have 1 980 per eye, I am ready, just waiting to see reviews so I can decide which headset to buy.
Considering my rig is "faster than 99%" of computers that have run Firestrike, according to 3DMARK i'm fairly certain that I'll have no problems running a VR headset.
Maybe if nvidia put some effort into their dx 12 performance.....
"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Considering that I'm gaming at 2560x1440 60fps or 220MP/s, on a single GTX 980 perfectly well.
Two 980's in SLI... Not quite 700% but more like £700!
I had the DK2 and a lesser system than I have now and I was running games on full detail with no problems at all. Maybe Nvidia know something others don't but I think 700% sounds a bit much.
Jon
So they're upping the acceptable FPS requirement from 30fps to 90fps. Is that evidence based? IE 30fps was always fine for desktop and VR needs 90?
R9 390, 2560x1440 freesync up to 144Hz, no problems here. Typical Nvidia, just wanting more of your cash.
It doesn't fit with their statement that you need no more than a 20ms lag between movement and display: that's achievable with 50fps minimum (unless you're rendering several frames ahead). Perhaps nvidia aren't very good at minimizing latency so they need to push more frames: I know AMD's focus has been on reducing latency between input and rendering, but I've not heard them bleating on about needing particularly high frame rates...Originally Posted by kalniel
Nvidia are pulling a fast one with their marketing for the new gpus I think, its not that much more power as no one I know finds 30fps acceptable on PC (unless it is an RTS, which isnt specified) and for FPS 60fps is a must but anyway the difference from 60 - 90 is much less than 30 - 90 !
90 FPS being the acceptable amount is just because Oculus Rift CV1 will be 90Hz, for VR you need have the fastest refresh rate as possible (pretty sure last time I checked 12ms was the minimum line), also I think Valve/HTC with the Vive is the same so Nvidia is just using it as a baseline (which is fair tbh). The key part for VR is that the minimum must not dip from this else it does screw with you in terms of motion sickness and disconnect from the experience.
Pleiades (04-01-2016)
They can have it.
They can have all of my cash... so long as they put out a single GPU that can handle all this VR nonsense and is affordable.
If they're trying to market something that requires specs only 20 people in the world could afford, they might as well just give up and go home.
As is, it'll be a good 5-10 years before I could afford VR... and I have a comparatively respectable gaming rig, too!!
I find a 30fps average absolutely fine, so that's one for your list
That said, the article is fairly clear that nvidia were talking about 30fps minimum, rather than average. But even then, there's plenty of lower-mid-range GPUs out there that'll manage 30fps minimum in a wide range of games @ 1080p.
Its probably because their current GPUs don't have full hardware support for certain VR tech like fine grained pre-emption,and their competition does(for over a year now),plus AMD is working on a whole lot of latency reduction tech too. so they are in catch-up mode until Pascal is released,and they get more of the software framework in place.
We'll find more about VR, after CES this week and just after that we can the real power needed. :/
You can add me to the list too. My ageing 580 manages more than that most of the time but star citizen tends to bring it down to 25~30 at 1080p (low)I find a 30fps average absolutely fine, so that's one for your list
That said, the article is fairly clear that nvidia were talking about 30fps minimum, rather than average. But even then, there's plenty of lower-mid-range GPUs out there that'll manage 30fps minimum in a wide range of games @ 1080p.I hate to think what that game will need for VR...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
