NVIDIA Says GameWorks VR Will Help VR Adoption – Expects 25 Million PC Gamers To Adopt Virtual Reality

[Mr_Troll]

NVIDIA Talks About VR Adoption in PC Market – GameWorks VR To Boost Both Performance and Adoption Rate
 

According to Jason, out of the entire PC installed base, there are just about 13 million PCs in the market that are able to run VR perfectly. These PCs feature high-end cards from NVIDIA and AMD (GTX 970s and R9 290s or greater). That number might look good but when we look at the audience over Sony’s PlayStation 4 game console that is around 30 million and all consoles are certified to run with the PlayStation VR headset, there seems to be quite a difference with twice the users than the PC platform. While PS4 may not be able to run VR with the same visual fidelity as PC, it will provide users the experience at much lower prices. The user on PC platform will end up with significant details and image quality, although at a higher cost. But PC games have always been the pinnacle of graphics showcase and VR will not only run great on the PC, but also look great.NVIDIA is hard at work on optimizing VR for their graphics chips. They are aware that you need a lot of horse power to run VR games. For instance, we have a typical gaming scenario where 1080P and 30 FPS are a base line for 90% of PC gamers. PCs today are powerful enough to run games at the said resolution and framerate and even cards like the GTX 950 can do much better at that resolution in a range of titles. However, if we want VR into consideration, that scenario requires a 2K (minimum) screen that has a resolution of 1440P but renders close to 3K resolution (1620P) and frame rates shouldn’t dip below 90 FPS. VR Gaming requires that extra performance that’s a 7 times increase over traditional gaming and you need to render screens really fast so there’s minimum amount of lag when a person moves his head to display the image in front of him, viewing the headset.

In his conversation, Jason revealed that NVIDIA in contact with over 600 companies working on VR projects and that number is likely to increase. There are around two thousand startups and companies working over on VR right now and having 600 of those as partners is a major deal. This shows just how serious NVIDIA is taking VR right now as it will be one of the most major drivers for high-end and enthusiast based graphics cards. In the future, NVIDIA believes that VR  would be more than just a platform for gamers, it will be one of the enabling technologies that offer a totally new way of social interaction among people.Right now, the focus is at gaming so we will talk about the other experiences in the future as more stuff is developed for the general audience. We know NVIDIA’s Maxwell GPU have a big market share, their GTX 970 is still one of the best selling graphics cards, even the more expensive GTX 980 Ti bagged a large user base for itself. Maxwell has had a particularly good year and we know that it already has support for VR gaming and DirectX 12. It doesn’t stops at Maxwell for NVIDIA, next week we will see new virtual reality experiences being shown at CES 2016. NVIDIA will be powering a lot of those demos and we might hear some words from them on their next generation Pascal GPUs which is also fully geared for gamers and professional audiences.

 

Technologies such as Multi-Res Shading which is part of the GameWorks VR SDK offer up to 50% boost with NVIDIA graphics cards. The SDK provides better performance without any kind of stutter and lag through the GameWorks VR on the consumer end and DesignWorks VR on the professional front.NVIDIA says that the PC platform’s installed user base for VR will continue to expand and as more games get GameWorks VR support, they added performance boost of up to 50% would mean that more and more PCs will be meeting the baseline of what’s required to run VR Gaming adequately. This will not only be achieved on PCs using current and next generation hardware, but PCs of all sort of will leverage from this such as note books. It’s surprising that NVIDIA controls that big of a market right now and its necessary for them being this big to drive VR for the gaming market, offering better performance and experiences to the consumer. While AMD controls a fraction of the market share that stands around 15-20%, CEO of NVIDIA, Jen-Hsun Huang, already stated that they still see AMD as a strong competition. More true words cannot be spoken, AMD has been doing a really good job keeping up with NVIDIA and even surpassing them in some technologies. Not only is this competition healthy for consumers, but NVIDIA believes that its good to have the competition running as it ends up in the better interest for all in the market.AMD has their own solution for VR known as LiquidVR which offers its own range of features. Such big is VR for graphics companies that AMD delayed their most powerful GPU, the Radeon R9 Fury X2, to align with VR market. We will see an update on VR and a lot of demos at CES 2016 in just a few days from NVIDIA and AMD.

 

Meh dont think VR will be that succesfull. It requires high end hardware plus VR headset  that wont be cheap. and the games they showed are boring . Sorry going to stay with classic pc  gaming via a monitor.Also they are talking about performance increase in UE4. What about other engines? are they going to run worse on nvidia VR? as far as i know UE 4 is not the only game engine out there..just saying

 

Source:http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gameworks-vr-large-scale-vr-adoption/

http://venturebeat.com/2015/12/30/to-handle-vr-graphics-gaming-pcs-have-to-be-7-times-more-powerful/view-all/

[The_Stig]

I'll adopt VR when it doesn't cost ~350 to get a VR headset and ~1500 to build a PC for it.

[AlwaysFSX]

inb4 shitstorm

 

---

 

At least they're pushing technology that should help it. Can't wait for solid information and products to be out for VR so we can see how it'll go, hopefully not the route of 3D.

[huckleberrypie]

inb4 shitstorm

Not to mention Gameworks being a closed standard.

[Master Disaster]

snip

I remember them saying similar shit when they were pushing 3D, we all saw how that turned out.

VR will end up just like 3D, a novelty that a few home users have.

[AlwaysFSX]

Not to mention Gameworks being a closed standard.

I'm honestly glad it is.

[huckleberrypie]

I'm honestly glad it is.

Mostly to piss off AMD users?

[AlwaysFSX]

Mostly to piss off AMD users?

No, I have nothing against AMD or people that use AMD. What I have against someone is open source bullshit where idiots try to "fix" something and create a dozen more problems every time they try to edit a line of code because they're a fucking idiot. At least in a closed ecosystem the code can be controlled and double checked to make sure it actually works.

[brownninja97]

i cant afford it so i will not get it. also its more shit to buy and i hate buying stuff.

[Rorgash]

I'll adopt VR when it doesn't cost ~350 to get a VR headset and ~1500 to build a PC for it.

it costs or will cost as much as a monitor, nothing strange since thats what it is, a cheap one even, and 1500 is a normal gaming pc so not sure whats up

 

right now a pc gamer buys a pc for 1500 and a monitor for 300, so nothing changes really

[AlwaysFSX]

i cant afford it so i will not get it. also its more shit to buy and i hate buying stuff.

I don't see the point of buying into VR unless you're really going to sink hundreds of hours in to it because it's such a niche product that can't be used in most scenarios.

[TOMPPIX]

it costs or will cost as much as a monitor, nothing strange since thats what it is, a cheap one even, and 1500 is a normal gaming pc so not sure whats up

 

right now a pc gamer buys a pc for 1500 and a monitor for 300, so nothing changes really

aren't smaller screens cheaper to create since less material is used? i just googled it a replacement screen for a LG G3 costs around 60 dollars.

[Senzelian]

No, I have nothing against AMD or people that use AMD. What I have against someone is open source bullshit where idiots try to "fix" something and create a dozen more problems every time they try to edit a line of code because they're a fucking idiot. At least in a closed ecosystem the code can be controlled and double checked to make sure it actually works.

So true.

It's time that people finally understand that NVidia isn't there to give everyone and their dog a free Titan X. They want to make money and they know how to do it.

[AlwaysFSX]

So true.

It's time that people finally understand that NVidia isn't there to give everyone and their dog a free Titan X. They want to make money and they know how to do it.

It's not even that. They're trying a proven method to make sure the product the release isn't a broken POS. And there isn't anything wrong with that either.

[Doobeedoo]

I will only get VR when it's more rounded mainstream product that works on more higher level. When I can actually see an fully supported game like MMO with it and something like that, much more when it will be ubiquitous.

[LAwLz]

No, I have nothing against AMD or people that use AMD. What I have against someone is open source bullshit where idiots try to "fix" something and create a dozen more problems every time they try to edit a line of code because they're a fucking idiot. At least in a closed ecosystem the code can be controlled and double checked to make sure it actually works.

It seems like you lack an understanding of how open source projects work... It's not like random people can just write code and it gets added to the program. Nvidia could make GameWorks open source and still have 100% control over every single line of code added to GameWorks.

 

Here is how a person contributes to an open source project:

1) I create a fork of the project. Let's use a hypothetical open source version of GameWorks as an example.

2) Now I got a copy of the GameWork's source code. I can make whichever changes I want on this copy without it changing anything on Nvidia's copy.

3) After I have done my changes I submit a "pull request" to Nvidia. They will get a notification where I describe the changes and possibly tests I have done etc.

4) Nvidia can see exactly which lines I have added, deleted and edited compared to their own version. Here is an example of what that might look like. Red is deleted, green is added.

5) Nvidia will do their own testing of my code and if they like it, they will merge my changes with their own version. If they don't like it they will either completely ignore it, or send back feedback on why they won't use it.

 

So being open source or not has no effect on the code quality, because it is still Nvidia (in this case) which controls exactly which code gets added to GameWorks.

It's not like Open Source projects are hosted on Dropbox in a .txt document which everyone has full read and write access to...

[mathijs727]

LOL, such BS in the first picture:

PC Gaming = 1080p @ 30fps.

 

Thats console terretory!

[Guest HyppoCube]

No, I have nothing against AMD or people that use AMD. What I have against someone is open source bullshit where idiots try to "fix" something and create a dozen more problems every time they try to edit a line of code because they're a fucking idiot. At least in a closed ecosystem the code can be controlled and double checked to make sure it actually works.

20 000 comments and you spew this?

i would expect this on WCCF tech, not here.

[brownninja97]

I don't see the point of buying into VR unless you're really going to sink hundreds of hours in to it because it's such a niche product that can't be used in most scenarios.

as im a sim racer its very very useful for me but i dont have the horsepower for it, i dont have the space or the money. It would be decent enough to have but the first arrival isnt going to be the best. This time next year it will be something to consider i think.

[AlwaysFSX]

It seems like you lack an understanding of how open source projects work... It's not like random people can just write code and it gets added to the program. Nvidia could make GameWorks open source and still have 100% control over every single line of code added to GameWorks.

 

Here is how a person contributes to an open source project:

1) I create a fork of the project. Let's use a hypothetical open source version of GameWorks as an example.

2) Now I got a copy of the GameWork's source code. I can make whichever changes I want on this copy without it changing anything on Nvidia's copy.

3) After I have done my changes I submit a "pull request" to Nvidia. They will get a notification where I describe the changes and possibly tests I have done etc.

4) Nvidia can see exactly which lines I have added, deleted and edited compared to their own version. Here is an example of what that might look like. Red is deleted, green is added.

5) Nvidia will do their own testing of my code and if they like it, they will merge my changes with their own version. If they don't like it they will either completely ignore it, or send back feedback on why they won't use it.

 

So being open source or not has no effect on the code quality, because it is still Nvidia (in this case) which controls exactly which code gets added to GameWorks.

It's not like Open Source projects are hosted on Dropbox in a .txt document which everyone has full read and write access to...

You're missing my point. I get what you're saying, and you are 100% correct. The problem is that if you have multiple people contributing nothing to further the project, the project gets stalled trying to test and debug people's code for all scenarios of what can and cannot go wrong. It has the ability to create more points of failure by accident and can slow some projects down a great deal. That's my problem with open source, it just slows things down in a lot of cases, where if you're trying to push a product to a consumer you're only hurting the bottom line and time table for release.

 

Open source is good for throwing ideas out there, but it does slow things down. And when something needs to be done quickly and efficiently the open source community can just get in the way.

 

20 000 comments and you spew this?

i would expect this on WCCF tech, not here.

I'm sorry you disagree with me but I'm not wrong.

 

as im a sim racer its very very useful for me but i dont have the horsepower for it, i dont have the space or the money. It would be decent enough to have but the first arrival isnt going to be the best. This time next year it will be something to consider i think.

VR is not going to be something that will even have the chance of being widely adopted for at least another year, maybe two because of the power problems it takes to run. So it's not really a sweat if you can't get it now because very few people can anyways. I use flight sim a lot and would love VR but in my case the panels have to be much higher resolution just to see gauges, which is already a problem I have now without VR. So I don't see it becoming a thing until we have much higher PPI panels just for the details that need to be seen, if this makes sense. And that's going to take a while especially because we need VR panels to be high refresh rates otherwise it causes people health problems.

[alamo]

bleh so much BS on the first Quote, starting the Milk train, your card isn't good enough you need to buy our new one...

things the quote omit to say is that, these calculations are exagerated, and DX11 based, when you enter dx12 or vulcan into it, things change, devs get closer to metal  with better control over resources, increase the draw calls capacity by x10 folds, knowing that the dip in fps in mainly caused by draw calls, not to mention it's gonna be up to the devs in the end to make the game fps target 90 with their target configuration, which wont be that high of a requirement knowing how PS4 performs, the start of the quote made me feel like the PS4 was so powerfull that my pc had no chance.

[deviant88]

VR wont be successful which is sad but it wont, its too expensive and developers are ruining everything because of consoles and PC hate.

Also if next year nvidia/AMD gpus are not 2-3x performance/$/Watt on 16nm VR is byebye.

 

Also they did not solve the controllers problem, i cannot see my mouse and keyboard, or controller while playing which is one of the worst issues after motion sickness.

 

Its not gonna happen folks, VR is still just a nice dream still, we can talk about it when we will have gpus made of graphite at 10ghz so we can actually render 2x1080p@90FPS stable.

[LAwLz]

You're missing my point. I get what you're saying, and you are 100% correct. The problem is that if you have multiple people contributing nothing to further the project, the project gets stalled trying to test and debug people's code for all scenarios of what can and cannot go wrong. It has the ability to create more points of failure by accident and can slow some projects down a great deal. That's my problem with open source, it just slows things down in a lot of cases, where if you're trying to push a product to a consumer you're only hurting the bottom line and time table for release.

 

Open source is good for throwing ideas out there, but it does slow things down. And when something needs to be done quickly and efficiently the open source community can just get in the way.

That makes no sense. Closed source projects needs just as much testing as the open source ones. There aren't any more points of failures.

Nvidia wouldn't even have to test the code if they did not want to. They could just ignore pull requests if they felt like it took up too much time and slowed things down.

 

There would be literally 0 drawbacks for you as a consumer.

Please stop with the anti-open source FUD.

[AlwaysFSX]

That makes no sense. Closed source projects needs just as much testing as the open source ones. There aren't any more points of failures.

Nvidia wouldn't even have to test the code if they did not want to. They could just ignore pull requests if they felt like it took up too much time and slowed things down.

 

There would be literally 0 drawbacks for you as a consumer.

Please stop with the anti-open source FUD.

If you wanted something open source then the code has to be tested along side the development done by the primary developer. Everyone's submission would need to be tested. If you do know coding, you know that sometimes an implementation of something has some very wonky side effects that were unintended. Strictly talking 3D rendering, you can make something act odd completely out of the blue, for example, texture flashing based on how you render textures off of 3D objects with conflicting layers.

 

So either you're doing open source testing, or you are not. You don't get to have your in between just because you don't like what I said. If a company was going to ignore pull requests anyways then what was the point of releasing the source code to be worked on? There isn't. They would have been better off hiring the handful of people that would fix something and put them in the closed environment to work hands on with the development team with 1-1 contact.

 

Goes full circle.

[jaggysnake57]

 so far ITT is a bunch of butt hurt people who cant afford vr bitching on it will flop 

 

 

I remember them saying similar shit when they were pushing 3D, we all saw how that turned out.

VR will end up just like 3D, a novelty that a few home users have.

 

vr is so much more than 3d its far more interactive i think it has the potential to really take off