Will the GTX 970 be Sufficient for VR in Upcoming years?

[ConiferousJelly]

Hi Everyone,

 

As the title asks, will the GTX 970 be sufficient for Virtual Reality within the next 2-3 years. I am looking at the just announced consumer HTC Vive and am tinkering around with an idea to build my second and final system until my upgrade cycle comes. With not having a huge budget if I were to get the Vive, would the GTX 970 do? I am thrilled about the idea I just am worried that the 970 won't keep up as seeing the two launch games don't look to resource intensive OTHER than the whole VR Part

 

Thanks,

ConiferousJelly

[App4that]

Depends. Max settings and 60fps, no. Medium settings and 60fps, yes.

[Big-G]

In the near future? I don't think so... it's barely meeting requirements at the moment...

[connorpiper]

Valve has this for reference: http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

[Hackentosher]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Depends. Max settings and 60fps, no. Medium settings and 60fps, yes.

Remember that VR has to be higher than 60 FPS, closer to like 90 minimum for an immersive VR experience.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, ConiferousJelly said:

Hi Everyone,

 

As the title asks, will the GTX 970 be sufficient for Virtual Reality within the next 2-3 years. I am looking at the just announced consumer HTC Vive and am tinkering around with an idea to build my second and final system until my upgrade cycle comes. With not having a huge budget if I were to get the Vive, would the GTX 970 do? I am thrilled about the idea I just am worried that the 970 won't keep up as seeing the two launch games don't look to resource intensive OTHER than the whole VR Part

 

Thanks,

ConiferousJelly

No....according to the vr guy, you need 4 titan x's and thats enough to play at medium settings kappa

[CommandMan7]

I just tested my G1 Gaming 970 (OC'd to 1451Mhz) on steam's VR benchmark and it said I was about above average in the VR-ready category. A single 970 should hold out on very high setting for the next year - year and a half, but if you ever buy a second one for SLI that should keep it well into required power levels.

[i_build_nanosuits]

3 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

Remember that VR has to be higher than 60 FPS, closer to like 90 minimum for an immersive VR experience.

i believe the resolution is higher as well?

but even at 1080p the 970 won't get 90FPS in many games...but so far there is only some VR demo and stuff anyways...but yeah no a GTX 970 is not really cutting it for VR IMHO.

 

EDIT: yeah 2160x1200 is the oculus rift resolution for example. (1080x1200 per eye)

[desertcomputer]

No, it can't even run some games at over 60fps at 1440p how do you think it will run with two of them running. SLI might be a option but pascal/polaris  or newer gpu would be much better option 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Hackentosher said:

Remember that VR has to be higher than 60 FPS, closer to like 90 minimum for an immersive VR experience.

Nah, depends on the VR but most are fine at 60fps. Human eye, 36fps, blah, blah, blah.

[VagabondWraith]

Maybe just enough for this year. And the 970 is the bare minimum. From next year onward not a chance.

[Hackentosher]

Just now, App4that said:

Nah, depends on the VR but most are fine at 60fps. Human eye, 36fps, blah, blah, blah.

the whole "the human eye is capped at X FPS" is crap I'm sorry, it is clear the difference between 30, 60, and higher FPS. With that out of my system, I thought the oculus needs like minimum 90 fps? Also resolution will kill the frame buffer on the poor 970.

[WarWeeny]

If you want to go VR, just wait until the whole scene has matured, not only will videocards be a lot more efficient at it at that time, but you then have a good understanding where it is going. There is a good chance the oculus rift, or any other VR system will flop, and any investment you made for it will be ultimately, washed down the toilet.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Nah, depends on the VR but most are fine at 60fps. Human eye, 36fps, blah, blah, blah.

no you get motion sick if it's not enough FPS...and 90FPS is considered ''enough'' FPS...not 60.

Also these are first gen VR units...it's said that they will strive for 8K resolution in the future...so you,ll see 4K headset as well in the meantime...the 970 is not a card for VR.

First Gen VR Demos? yes... 2nd gen VR AAA titles...NO.

[ConiferousJelly]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

Depends. Max settings and 60fps, no. Medium settings and 60fps, yes.

Ahh yes... I am not someone who needs max and all of that, heck I am fine with the lowest as long as I am getting 60FPS (Or 90 in VRs Case) Thanks!

4 minutes ago, GidonsClaw said:

In the near future? I don't think so... it's barely meeting requirements at the moment...

Ill probably be building around April-ish, so hopefully by the AMD has better and newer GPUs by then, and if so even though I prefer Nvidia whatever is better I will do. Very Unlikely that will happen though

3 minutes ago, connorpiper said:

Valve has this for reference: http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

Installing now, thanks alot. Gives me a huge point of reference with my 960 

2 minutes ago, Hackentosher said:

Remember that VR has to be higher than 60 FPS, closer to like 90 minimum for an immersive VR experience.

Yes, but if lower settings is what has to happen, I am fine with that.

Just now, jkeasley said:

No....according to the vr guy, you need 4 titan x's and thats enough to play at medium settings kappa

The one and only VR guy, I agree... will splurge and max out 6 credit cards to do so

[App4that]

Just now, Hackentosher said:

the whole "the human eye is capped at X FPS" is crap I'm sorry, it is clear the difference between 30, 60, and higher FPS. With that out of my system, I thought the oculus needs like minimum 90 fps? Also resolution will kill the frame buffer on the poor 970.

Actually, not crap. You really can't, what you CAN tell is what else happens as the fps increases/decreases.

 

VR is tricky business, and those other things listed, or not listed as I didn't list them top save time, matter much more. Most of the companies supplying VR sets know this and prioritized solving those issues.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

no you get motion sick if it's not enough FPS...and 90FPS is considered ''enough'' FPS...not 60.

Also these are first gen VR units...it's said that they will strive for 8K resolution in the future...so you,ll see 4K headset as well in the meantime...the 970 is not a card for VR.

First Gen VR Demos? yes... 2nd gen VR AAA titles...NO.

All depends. The company I worked for didn't have an issue with hardware, but the VR itself. Wear a welding mask for an hour, come back and we can pick this up again

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

All depends. The company I worked for didn't have an issue with hardware, but the VR itself. Wear a welding mask for an hour, come back and we can pick this up again

no i agree i don't even see VR catching up personally...i wouldn't buy one...well...lets be honest...maybe in a few years down the road when 4K VR and 4K porn goes to VR...yeah...i will buy one!!

[App4that]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

no i agree i don't even see VR catching up personally...i wouldn't buy one...well...lets be honest...maybe in a few years down the road when 4K VR and 4K porn goes to VR...yeah...i will buy one!!

VR will be useful for games developed especially for it.

 

For anyone not getting why VR won't work, think of it this way. If you could suspend your monitor in front of your head, and it moved as you looked around, the image wouldn't. Now if it did, how do you aim? Once the brain thinks it's moving, it get's OCD about how things should work. Using a controller or mouse to move, pisses it straight off, and you puke. By the time you have the equipment needed to get around this you'd have a fucking car. Not a wise investment IMO.

 

Put the money you'd stick in a VR headset into a bomb ass monitor, trust me.

[i_build_nanosuits]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

Put the money you'd stick in a VR headset into a bomb ass monitor, trust me.

i just want to watch virtual hookers in 3d and drool all over my desk to be honest...i don't care about games i have a QuadHD monitor with Gsync and 144hz for that

[ConiferousJelly]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

VR will be useful for games developed especially for it.

 

For anyone not getting why VR won't work, think of it this way. If you could suspend your monitor in front of your head, and it moved as you looked around, the image wouldn't. Now if it did, how do you aim? Once the brain thinks it's moving, it get's OCD about how things should work. Using a controller or mouse to move, pisses it straight off, and you puke. By the time you have the equipment needed to get around this you'd have a fucking car. Not a wise investment IMO.

 

Put the money you'd stick in a VR headset into a bomb ass monitor, trust me.

This thread has completely detailed the reasons I should not, and can not go through with my next build with VR in mind. Bomb ass monitor will be put aside, but putting that extra money into the PC will be worthwhile. An upgrade from a i5-6600k to i7-6700k, better aesthetic and keeping my 750ti and the rest of the money for Pascal/Polaris when it comes in the seemly closer future seems WAY better. Thanks guys  

[App4that]

Just now, i_build_nanosuits said:

i just want to watch virtual hookers in 3d and drool all over my desk to be honest...i don't care about games i have a QuadHD monitor with Gsync and 144hz for that

I have no argument for that. Other than not having the peripheral vision to know if the wife comes home

[i_build_nanosuits]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

I have no argument for that. Other than not having the peripheral vision to know if the wife comes home

haha yeah but she does not need to know...only YOU see what is on the VR display...you just answer: ''yeah yeah i'm playing rocket league honey i'm coming''...