Oculus Recommended Specs

[osbios]

What I mean is that since you are not runing below the refresh rate of the Rift, with V-Sync you will get stutters. If u don't have v-sync, then expect tearing, and u don't really want any of the 2 while gaming in VR.

And what I mean is exactly that will NOT happen because the oculus software will calculate a new frame based on the last one when you can not deliver in time.

 

AT 90 Hz you have 11,11_ ms to render your new frame.

Now we have a shader that can calculate a new frame with the current head rotation bases on the last frame. If this shader needs 1ms on your setup you are left with 10.11_ ms to render your frame before the oculus software has to fall back and use the last frame to calculate the next visible one.

 

The whole point about this is: Including the head rotation into the next frame has priority over anything else.

Of course except the head rotation everything else you see will be moving at 45 Hz.

[boboman342]

So the ppi of this screen in probably over 400, but how much will the screen be magnified (hehe) by the lenses? Like how will different amounts of aa, textures, etc, be seen by your eyes? Even my gtx 970 overclocked couldn't run 1440p 90fps everything maxed no aa, so I am wondering about the experience I would have after turning settings down.

[WhiteSkyMage]

So the ppi of this screen in probably over 400, but how much will the screen be magnified (hehe) by the lenses? Like how will different amounts of aa, textures, etc, be seen by your eyes? Even my gtx 970 overclocked couldn't run 1440p 90fps everything maxed no aa, so I am wondering about the experience I would have after turning settings down.

The screen is 2160x1200, so it will be easier, but again, it's 90fps and above u are aiming at. You might wanna put another 970 on top if you want it all maxed with AA...but the magnified lenses aren't mentioned in the spec requirements.

And what I mean is exactly that will NOT happen because the oculus software will calculate a new frame based on the last one when you can not deliver in time.

AT 90 Hz you have 11,11_ ms to render your new frame.

Now we have a shader that can calculate a new frame with the current head rotation bases on the last frame. If this shader needs 1ms on your setup you are left with 10.11_ ms to render your frame before the oculus software has to fall back and use the last frame to calculate the next visible one.

The whole point about this is: Including the head rotation into the next frame has priority over anything else.

Of course except the head rotation everything else you see will be moving at 45 Hz.

Hm so it is different than a standart monitor then. Fine but again 45Hz is 2x the latency...so better it is to aim at 90, even if graphics setting are to be turned down...

[osbios]

Hm so it is different than a standart monitor then. Fine but again 45Hz is 2x the latency...so better it is to aim at 90, even if graphics setting are to be turned down...

 

Absolutely! If they could they would made a 120Hz version. (In the sense of display tech and GPU power)

The fallback to calculate intermediate frames is only meant to compensate for small hickups. It is not meant to make games that always run at "cinematic" 45 Hz.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

But since I have a 770 I won't be able to run this great? D:

[Thony]

Nice req specs. My CPU is fine now i just need Pascal X70 GPU and to see other VR reviews , especially HTC Vice

Next year is gonna be great !

[Thony]

But since I have a 770 I won't be able to run this great? D:

Depends on the games that come out for VR. Your card can surely push 90fps.

I wouldn't expect any AAA title maxed out at that resolution at 90fps for sure. Fps drops will be much more noticeable I imagine.

U can always change the in-game settings

We are yet to see what DX12 brings but I expect that to help with the framerates. Surely the VR headset developers are already working on some DX 12 games to launch with their headset.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

Depends on the games that come out for VR. Your card can surely push 90fps.

I wouldn't expect any AAA title maxed out at that resolution at 90fps for sure. Fps drops will be much more noticeable I imagine.

U can always change the in-game settings

We are yet to see what DX12 brings but I expect that to help with the framerates. Surely the VR headset developers are already working on some DX 12 games to launch with their headset.

 

I see.

 

Anyways I am still getting it, ayyy.

 

But how demanding is VR. Like the same game without VR compared to VR how much FPS difference will it be?

[Thony]

I see.

Anyways I am still getting it, ayyy.

But how demanding is VR. Like the same game without VR compared to VR how much FPS difference will it be?

We see once its out. But VR is just a display with cameras and some other sensors that need to communicate with your PC. The main performance hit is done by that resolution.

[WiiManic]

I see.

 

Anyways I am still getting it, ayyy.

 

But how demanding is VR. Like the same game without VR compared to VR how much FPS difference will it be?

The "Powering the Rift" link mentions something along this line.

 

This means that by raw rendering costs alone, a VR game will require approximately 3x the GPU power of 1080p rendering.

We will see how accurate that is on average, but fairly hard to run, hence the higher specs.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

We see once its out. But VR is just a display with cameras and some other sensors that need to communicate with your PC. The main performance hit is done by that resolution.

 

Oh yeah. I hope they still let 1080p available... I don't mind 1080p ha ha.

[WhiteSkyMage]

The "Powering the Rift" link mentions something along this line.

 

We will see how accurate that is on average, but fairly hard to run, hence the higher specs.

  

Oh yeah. I hope they still let 1080p available... I don't mind 1080p ha ha.

  

Absolutely! If they could they would made a 120Hz version. (In the sense of display tech and GPU power)

The fallback to calculate intermediate frames is only meant to compensate for small hickups. It is not meant to make games that always run at "cinematic" 45 Hz.

  

Nice req specs. My CPU is fine now i just need Pascal X70 GPU and to see other VR reviews , especially HTC Vice

Next year is gonna be great !

I am a bit curious about that Project Morpheus. Do you guys think it will be a fail?

[Thony]

Oh yeah. I hope they still let 1080p available... I don't mind 1080p ha ha.

1080p is fine for monitors and TVs but for something that is an inch from your eye, its not that good.

[Thony]

I am a bit curious about that Project Morpheus. Do you guys think it will be a fail?

Don't know. From I saw most of the reviewers liked HTC Vive the most.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

1080p is fine for monitors and TVs but for something that is an inch from your eye, its not that good.

 

Well I am no more than 4 inch from my monitor and if I get really close it looks still good, and the oculus screen is even smaller so...

[Thony]

Well I am no more than 4 inch from my monitor and if I get really close it looks still good, and the oculus screen is even smaller so...

I haven't tried any VR headset yet. But I know 720p was awful, 1080p was a noticeable and needed improvement but its not a very good quality.

I just want the best possible experience I can get. If its gonna be fine for you then thats good for you

Our standards differ.

[WiiManic]

Well I am no more than 4 inch from my monitor and if I get really close it looks still good, and the oculus screen is even smaller so...

You have to consider the fact that the 1920x1080 resolution is instantly halved, as its half the screen for each eye.

Then with this halved resolution, you are looking at it via a lens, that is both magnifying the image further, as well as distorting the image on the screen to fill your FoV. This has the effect of making the pixels seem further apart as you are spreading the image further. (To my knowledge).

Add on the fact of how close you are and its not great.

 

I know some people are perfectly happy with 1080p for gaming, but VR really needs the high resolution.

Reduces the "screen door" effect, and also just at that low of a resolution, text and such is hard to read. Higher resolutions fix that.

Also helps increase presence. We are going to be chasing higher resolutions for a while for VR.

[GarlanTyrell]

Yep, people here think it's not a high requirement. But if you take the overall pc gaming ecosystem few people have as much power as a 290 or a 970. On steam hardware survey the most popular graphics is Intel HD4000 LOL. But I think oculus knows that their initial target market is tech enthusiasts like us who have powerful hardware. Not the average pc gamer, not until a bit later...

But that's also to do with the fact that everyone and their dog are playing on standard 1080p monitors (or less) at somewhere between 30 and 60 Hz, low end hardware has been doing well enough in those situations and the price increase to the high end stuff is kind of ridiculous, $1000 for a graphics card? Basically, recently there has been little incentive for most people to spend big bucks on the hardware needed for OR and in the article the guy pretty much eludes to that being the reason for the specs the way they are.

It seems like Oculus want the CV1 to get people used to the requirements before they move onto the specs they really want (from the article it looks like they want about 2560x1600p @ 100Hz) which, until that sort of graphics power becomes mainstream, won't happen soon.

[WhiteSkyMage]

But that's also to do with the fact that everyone and their dog are playing on standard 1080p monitors (or less) at somewhere between 30 and 60 Hz, low end hardware has been doing well enough in those situations and the price increase to the high end stuff is kind of ridiculous, $1000 for a graphics card? Basically, recently there has been little incentive for most people to spend big bucks on the hardware needed for OR and in the article the guy pretty much eludes to that being the reason for the specs the way they are.

It seems like Oculus want the CV1 to get people used to the requirements before they move onto the specs they really want (from the article it looks like they want about 2560x1600p @ 100Hz) which, until that sort of graphics power becomes mainstream, won't happen soon.

Well, first a Pascal GTX1080 needs to do perfect 120FPS @ 1440p, before we talk 2560x1600p. I highly doubt that Nvidia will to do a successor to 980 and Titan X with 2x the performance on top 2nd gen Pascal (GP100). Perhaps in 3 years yes, we will have it, and until then a 970 performance will hopefully be rooted in every house with a gamer, excluding console guys, and upgrading to another CV2 will be like upgrading from PS3 to PS4, except u are going to pay another $600 for a gpu and 200-300$ for CV2.