NVIDIA recommends the GTX 980 Ti and GTX 980 for 1080p 90FPS VR gaming

[Bouzoo]

NVIDIA released their recommended graphics cards for VR gaming in 1080p with 90FPS. The cards at talk are their top of the line GTX 980 Ti and GTX 980. I'm sure many, if not most users won't be happy with this, considering NV sells more lower tier graphics cards then their most expensive ones (not taking Titan X in account), even though their top tier sales are allegedly growing with every year.

 

Not only is the company recommending the GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti for VR gaming at 1080p 90FPS, but for 4K gaming at 60FPS on the latest AAA titles. The GTX 980 is capable of playing games at 1440p at 60FPS while the GTX 950 and GTX 960 are more than capable of running games at 1080p 60FPS. But when it comes to VR gaming, the GTX 980 and GTX 980 Ti are recommended for 1080p 90FPS.

 

 

 

If I'm be honest here, it's a bit more than I expected. I was hoping at least the GTX 970 to be recommended, so maybe a heavily overclocked non reference GTX 970 will be able to do the trick, considering there is quite a gap between the recommended cards. I'm sure how many people with lower tier cards will be focusing on VR gaming, but it surely isn't gonna be cheap. 

Sources: 1, 2

[AlwaysFSX]

Well considering you need to have a consistent frame rate all the time, this is a "duh" thing.

[Castdeath97]

We will have to wait for pascal if we'd ever expect less than 400 dollar cards for VR. Maybe even more.

[cesrai]

Don't b you have to render for two displays in VR ?

[19_blackie_73]

vr is heavy load for gpu's. I didn't expect anything other

[C0LL0SS0S]

Not suprised, kinda suprised that one 980ti is enough tbh

[ashtaroth]

Is VR going to be rendering the same as Nvdia 3D vision does? Are the setting going to be ultra at 90 FPS? If so one 980ti wont be enough. Anyways its too early to tell and quite frankly I hope the consumer version of the device wont be as bulky.

[SteveGrabowski0]

I always thought it was kind of weird Occulus was recommending an i5-4590 and a GTX 970 for 90 fps gaming at a somewhat larger resolution than 1080p. I'd have to drop settings way down to medium on a lot of games to get a something approaching a locked 90 fps on my 970.

[Alurit]

well if we factor in what cpu you need for 90 in most big games, the locked i5's that are often paired with the 970/390 are not enough to achieve a consistent 90fps. for games like mgs V an i3 might be enough (it is not even fps, but an example for well running modern game) but gta may need a better cpu.

vr is the niche of the niche

[MoonSpot]

[shovel full of salt]

And if I understood/extrapolated correctly while skimming around for AMDs requirements, an R9 290X is enough for AMD in part because of GCNs asynchronous compute.  Though that's IF devs use LiquidVR, and from AMDs internal testing.

 

 

System Specifications: CPU: AMD FX 8350, Memory: 16GB DDR3 1600 MHz, Motherboard: 990 FX, GPU: AMD R9
290X 4GB, OS: Windows 7 Enterprise 64 bit Driver: 15.10.1006, Demo Running: AMD Internal Application Asynchronous Compute

PG 11 Footnotes

http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/gr_proc_req_for_enabling_immer_VR.pdf

 

If so, that is a rather large delta between red and green.

[/shovel full of salt]

[qwertywarrior]

oculus recommends 970

Nvidia recommends 980

 

common sense says GCN 1.x because of async compute

[ThreePinkApples]

Don't b you have to render for two displays in VR ?

 

There is just one display, but they display two pictures on it side by side (like some 3D technologies do), so each picture is half width. So a 1080p VR screen will have two pictures on 960x1080

[AlwaysFSX]

There is just one display, but they display two pictures on it side by side (like some 3D technologies do), so each picture is half width. So a 1080p VR screen will have two pictures on 960x1080

It's done by using two camera viewpoints done in engine, not by having two pictures or displays..

[Bouzoo]

oculus recommends 970

Ah yes, that was probably the reason I expected the 970, I remember that Oculus recommended it.

[Briggsy]

Oculus recently released runtime 0.7 which ties directly into AMD liquid VR, or Nvidia gameworks VR. I'm honestly surprised at Nvidia's recommendation, but then again we won't know for sure until later, because only a handful of games support runtime 0.7 and vorpx 0.9beta isn't out yet. There are some games that just weren't designed for VR either. Gta V in VR is a great way to lose your lunch, while alien isolation can be played for hours in VR without any nausia. Still, 980 minimum is a pretty high requirement for dual 960x1080 VR.

[ThreePinkApples]

It's done by using two camera viewpoints done in engine, not by having two pictures or displays..

 

A, makes more sense, although the description kinda works still. (It was just my ruff understanding of it)

[JAKEBAB]

Op this is for 90fps so 60fps may be achievable with a 970 but as someone already said a consistent frame rate is ideal for VR so, might be the methodology behind the recommended specs?

[Maslofski]

ive 1440p is 170% of 1080p then for 90 fps a single 970 does feel a slight bit lacking. 980ti seems fair

[Snadzies]

Not surprising, you have to render two view points and have a stable high frame rate if you don't want people getting motion sick.

It seems to me that even the current high end cards are just barely enough for VR and 4k.

I figure it will be another 2-3 GPU generations before there are cards powerful enough to run 4k and VR well but still affordable to the greater PC community.

[BuckGup]

I wonder what it would be for an AMD card without the whole Nvidia only render what you see fish eye thing

[vXhanz]

I guess I'm in the clear then, I get motion sickness so badly that anything 3d or VR is out for me. Nice to see a breakdown from nVidia about their recommended cards and the intended resolution. 

[Bouzoo]

Op this is for 90fps so 60fps may be achievable with a 970 but as someone already said a consistent frame rate is ideal for VR so, might be the methodology behind the recommended specs?

True enough, I'm sure a 970 is gonna have stable 60 if a 980 can get 90.I tested Oculus only at expo and I've no idea how many FPS I got then, so I'm curious how big of a difference means 90 over 60 FPS. I know, it's better and all but is VR in 60 so bad that we need 90? Calling out for people that own a headset. 

[Thony]

Expected.

Does it mean we are super duper close to finally buy VR ?

[patrickjp93]

Is VR going to be rendering the same as Nvdia 3D vision does? Are the setting going to be ultra at 90 FPS? If so one 980ti wont be enough. Anyways its too early to tell and quite frankly I hope the consumer version of the device wont be as bulky.

For 1080p x2, a 980TI is definitely plenty.

[Davehaslanded]

I was under the impression the consumer rift and Vive are 1440p screens, so isn't this all slightly irrelevant? Almost comes across as if they're purposely giving frame rates for resolution they know they can maintain a high FPS, instead of the actual resolution off VR headsets.