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

[othertomperson]

What is the actual resolution it is rendering? It seems to me that it's going to be quite a bit higher than 1920x1080 because it's rendering an image per eye. And then you want a highly consistent 90 fps at that, suddenly it does seem quite a bit more demanding than the normal 1080p 60fps you compare it to.

[ConnorDahne]

My oculus dk1 ran fine on my little brother's gtx 450, I'm not too worried about it lol

[Nav1tech]

I'm not surprised. I can't max out all settings in project cars on my oculus DK2 90

[NAP51DMustang]

wait wait wait wait. people thought a 970 was enough for VR? lol

[Bouzoo]

wait wait wait wait. people thought a 970 was enough for VR? lol

 

Oculus themselves recommended the 970.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/oculus-reveals-system-requirements-rift,29111.html

http://www.gizmag.com/oculus-rift-specs/37536/

[werto165]

It renders a single image for valves headset it's 1.4x the resolution you want to be playing at.  

 don't know what I was talking about, stereo 3d needs to be rendered from two view points to get depth... 

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1021771/Advanced-VR

 

go under the optics and distortion tab. 

 

Also they say that 4x MSAA is a minimum, probably worth watching the whole thing, going to do that now personally. 

[thebennyboy]

wait wait wait wait. people thought a 970 was enough for VR? lol

 

Those people lack any common sense. Too many people believe all the BS Nvidia tells them.

[Bouzoo]

 

Those people lack any common sense. Too many people believe all the BS Nvidia tells them.

If people that thought that the 970 is gonna be enough lack any common sense (because it's not strong enough), why should they not believe that 980/980 Ti should be enough (which NV told should be enough)? Contradictory sentences.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Bouzoo

[Davehaslanded]

I swear i read an article a while back about someone creating a system where by you could use lower texture and post processing in the peripheral vision areas to assist better performance.

[Cheddle]

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.

 

Both the Vive and Oculus CV1 are 2160x1200 (25% more pixels than 1080p)

 

I swear i read an article a while back about someone creating a system where by you could use lower texture and post processing in the peripheral vision areas to assist better performance.

 

the problem with this feature is that it has to be built into the engine from the ground up, I assume most devs will be lazy and just make the game run reasonably well on moderate hardware.

 

we can hope for something like Unity and Unreal engine adoption and games developed on those will be easy.

 

Unreal's oculus support is now so good games are "accidentally" supporting it... I fired up the unreal tournament alpha with my rift plugged in and it immediately rendered it to the rift.

 

--

 

Honestly I think these requirements are a bit of a stretch... any level of fidelity that requires the power of a 980ti is rather pointless on such a "low" resolution screen... jitter free perfect headtracking, good sound, good input and clever gameplay to increase immersion are 10000x times more important in VR than how pretty it looks.

[Guest Strangerbob]

Nvidia wants my money again?

 

How is this possible?

[Bschro4]

I already have a EVGA 980 SC, would probably get another before doing 90FPS VR

[Swndlr]

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

$400 isnt too steep is you ask me.

[Davehaslanded]

I already have a EVGA 980 SC, would probably get another before doing 90FPS VR

Not sure i would want to do Dual GPU with VR. Any stuttering would make you feel so ill. Probably new Nvidia GPUs are right around the corner.

[Bojamijams]

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. 

 

Yes VR is bad at 60Hz.  You need 90Hz Minimum.  That means you need 90FPS Minimum. 

 

This will be the new ALL IMPORTANT metric in reviewing cards for VR from this point on.  Average FPS? Who cares? Max FPS? Totally useless.  Minimum FPS is the be-all, end-all metric.  You need a card that can maintain 90FPS MINIMUM.  If your game starts going under that, you will get a very bad experience, possibly headaches and nausea. 

 

Also a thing to remember, is that 90Hz will probably be a first gen VR thing.  All the VR guys agree that 200Hz+ would be the ultimate but we don't have the displays or the GPUs to push that yet.  Expect Gen2 VR (Vive2, Oculus CV2) to be 120Hz minimum

[Notional]

I think latency is much more important than fps (although they do corrolate to some extent). Having Adaptive Sync should be a must, as stutter (and possibly tearing) would make you blow chunks.

 

I am interested in seeing AMD versus NVidia in a VR shootout.

[Yoinkerman]

Just make games potato gfx and it's no problem

[Mahigan]

From: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-recommends-geforce-gtx-980-ti-gtx-980-1080p-vr-gaming-highend-market-share-rises-apac-markets/

Once NVIDIA features Async support through drivers, it will be possible to see better DX12 performance and Preemption Context Switching on NVIDIA hardware.

 

 

No. The performance oriented preemption is not a driver related issue. It is a hardware related issue. Watch GDC 2015's nVIDIA presentation.. and I quote nVIDIAs representative "On future GPUs, we're working to enable Finer-grained preemption, but that's still a long way off". nVIDIA use coarse grained preemption which can cause delays of upwards of 1000ms. It is therefore not a performance oriented feature on Maxwell 2.

 

As for Async Compute, it can only be used at the end of Draw Call Boundaries on nVIDIA Maxwell 2 products. You're therefore not likely going to see any performance benefits from its usage (remains to be seen but I doubt it). See WCCF's own Async Time Warp image "previous image re-warped" meaning you cannot asynchronously render a new image (frame), you have to re-use the same image (frame) that was previously rendered.

 

Sources: 

 

The nVIDIA GDC 2015 PDF is available here (page 23): http://www.reedbeta.com/talks/VR_Direct_GDC_2015.pdf

 

Also my post here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1572716/directx-12-asynchronous-compute-an-exercise-in-crowd-sourcing#post_24385652

[Zah]

 

From: http://wccftech.com/nvidia-recommends-geforce-gtx-980-ti-gtx-980-1080p-vr-gaming-highend-market-share-rises-apac-markets/

 

No. The performance oriented preemption is not a driver related issue. It is a hardware related issue. Watch GDC 2015's nVIDIA presentation.. and I quote nVIDIAs representative "On future GPUs, we're working to enable Finer-grained preemption, but that's still a long way off". nVIDIA use coarse grained preemption which can cause delays of upwards of 1000ms. It is therefore not a performance oriented feature on Maxwell 2.

 

As for Async Compute, it can only be used at the end of Draw Call Boundaries on nVIDIA Maxwell 2 products. You're therefore not likely going to see any performance benefits from its usage (remains to be seen but I doubt it). See WCCF's own Async Time Warp image "previous image re-warped" meaning you cannot asynchronously render a new image (frame), you have to re-use the same image (frame) that was previously rendered.

 

Sources: 

 

The nVIDIA GDC 2015 PDF is available here (page 23): http://www.reedbeta.com/talks/VR_Direct_GDC_2015.pdf

 

Also my post here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1572716/directx-12-asynchronous-compute-an-exercise-in-crowd-sourcing#post_24385652

 

Yea, WCCF Tech is a running joke here.

[Mahigan]

Yea, WCCF Tech is a running joke here.

 

Hopefully they'll fix their article.

[jjohnthedon1]

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

Yes u have to render 2 screens at 90fps 1080p

[Centurius]

It'll probably work with less, Nvidia is just playing it safe across the board so people can't complain to them in case of frame drops.

[Guest Kloaked]

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

 

I'd still expect to have to turn some settings down even with a 980 Ti.

[Zah]

I'd still expect to have to turn some settings down even with a 980 Ti.

I still can't use Hairworks in Witcher 3 on my 980ti without getting close to Geralt's sexy hair and dropping half my frames.

 

And that's just 1080p/60!

[Notional]

I still can't use Hairworks in Witcher 3 on my 980ti without getting close to Geralt's sexy hair and dropping half my frames.

 

And that's just 1080p/60!

 

GameWorks - They way it was meant to be played. Ugh. If only NVidia users could lower the tessellation factor. Ironically the reason you can on AMD, is due to shitty over tessellated GameWorks effects.

 

Either way, I'm curious as to what async shaders will do in VR.