Is Z77 and 2700K viable for VR?

[IsFyx]

It's pretty much in the title I guess. Will a system running a 2700K on a Z77 chipset in any significant way bottleneck or limit specs needed for VR?

 

If it makes any difference I am going for Oculus.

 

If it does not introduce any issues I would rather spend my money on a 980ti, instead of spending it on a Skylake i5 chip, new motherboard and a lesser graphics card.

[Mr.Meerkat]

In threaded applications, the i7 could be faster than a skylake i5 due to hyperthreading and yes, the i7 2700k is a really capable chip still so there's not much reason not to go for it  

[DXMember]

.... VR is not pixie dust

playing Minecraft with oculus doesn't magically require 5960X at 5GHz and quad Titan X setup

VR or not - you're still playing the same god damn game at 1080p

[Sanderman135]

7 minutes ago, DXMember said:

.... VR is not pixie dust

playing Minecraft with oculus doesn't magically require 5960X at 5GHz and quad Titan X setup

VR or not - you're still playing the same god damn game at 1080p

whoa, chill buddy 

[IsFyx]

8 minutes ago, DXMember said:

.... VR is not pixie dust

playing Minecraft with oculus doesn't magically require 5960X at 5GHz and quad Titan X setup

VR or not - you're still playing the same god damn game at 1080p

Its not 1080p though. Running Eve Valkyrie at 2160x1200 and 90fps is going to take a little more horsepower than running Minecraft on a 30hz TV

[IsFyx]

Anyhorse, I was not really that worried about the raw performance of the 2700K. I am more concerned that there might be needed features lacking or sub-par on the chipset side.

Is there anything you guys can think of?

[Lord-Anubis]

1 hour ago, DXMember said:

.... VR is not pixie dust

playing Minecraft with oculus doesn't magically require 5960X at 5GHz and quad Titan X setup

VR or not - you're still playing the same god damn game at 1080p

Actually, you're playing 2 god damn games at 1080p at a god damn frame rate of 90 frickin FPS.

[DXMember]

6 hours ago, Lord-Anubis said:

Actually, you're playing 2 god damn games at 1080p at a god damn frame rate of 90 frickin FPS.

nah, it's not

current head sets are barely above 1080p, they are actually 2160x1200 and it's not per eye, it's the total resolution for both screens

and you're not running two games, you're still running same game just showing it in two different camera angles

since the resolution is so low it doesn't really matter, but applying some really clever math you could reduce the workload by a lot if anyone cared enough

8 hours ago, IsFyx said:

Its not 1080p though. Running Eve Valkyrie at 2160x1200 and 90fps is going to take a little more horsepower than running Minecraft on a 30hz TV

but it's not going to take more horsepower than on a flat screen...

I mentioned Minecraft as an example, because it's one of the first games available in VR and it's pretty obvious that you don't need more power for the same game with VR or a flat screen

the complete answer is - it would depends on the game.

as far as chipset features, you'd need USB 3.0 for Oculus, which Z77 chipsets do have

[IsFyx]

2 hours ago, DXMember said:

nah, it's not

current head sets are barely above 1080p, they are actually 2160x1200 and it's not per eye, it's the total resolution for both screens

and you're not running two games, you're still running same game just showing it in two different camera angles

since the resolution is so low it doesn't really matter, but applying some really clever math you could reduce the workload by a lot if anyone cared enough

but it's not going to take more horsepower than on a flat screen...

I mentioned Minecraft as an example, because it's one of the first games available in VR and it's pretty obvious that you don't need more power for the same game with VR or a flat screen

the complete answer is - it would depends on the game.

as far as chipset features, you'd need USB 3.0 for Oculus, which Z77 chipsets do have

Instead of your really clever math, here's some really simple math:

 

Split the 2160x1200 display for your two camera angles. That will give you, in effect, two 1080x1200 screens. These two virtual screens each have a ~1.3mpx pixelcount. Now imagine you want to drive these screens at 90fps. In practice this equates ~1.3mpx at 180fps, or more accurately 233280000 pixels every second.

 

Now lets take your regular Minecraft scenario, let's say you are running it at 1080p and 60fps. Skipping to the end, that will give you 12441600 pixels every second.

 

Lastly, lets divide 233280000 by 124416000. That will give you 1.875, meaning you will need 1.875 times the power, or in layman's terms just south of twice the performance just to push the pure pixels to your Oculus. I'll grant you that the boxy world of Minecraft might not push that number much higher, with it's basic effects, but it will still be twice the performance.

 

Now I'll leave it to your really clever math to figure out how much that number will increase, when you try to render the particle effects of me blowing you up in Eve Valkyrie from two angles at once.

[Snadzies]

It likely will be fine.

VR games are going to be far more GPU bound overall than anything.

Running a game now, the strain on a CPU between 1080p and 4k isn't that much different in most cases.

If your CPU isn't the limiting factor for you right now then it likely will not be with VR.

[Doowstados]

The i7-2700K is still a very capable CPU, considerably faster than most out there. You won't have any problems.

[DXMember]

9 hours ago, IsFyx said:

Instead of your really clever math, here's some really simple math:

 

Split the 2160x1200 display for your two camera angles. That will give you, in effect, two 1080x1200 screens. These two virtual screens each have a ~1.3mpx pixelcount. Now imagine you want to drive these screens at 90fps. In practice this equates ~1.3mpx at 180fps, or more accurately 233280000 pixels every second.

 

Now lets take your regular Minecraft scenario, let's say you are running it at 1080p and 60fps. Skipping to the end, that will give you 12441600 pixels every second.

 

Lastly, lets divide 233280000 by 124416000. That will give you 1.875, meaning you will need 1.875 times the power, or in layman's terms just south of twice the performance just to push the pure pixels to your Oculus. I'll grant you that the boxy world of Minecraft might not push that number much higher, with it's basic effects, but it will still be twice the performance.

 

Now I'll leave it to your really clever math to figure out how much that number will increase, when you try to render the particle effects of me blowing you up in Eve Valkyrie from two angles at once.

I believe you are greately underestimating the power of modern graphics cards or you are not deeply knowledgeable on the topic you are debating at the moment

[IsFyx]

3 hours ago, DXMember said:

I believe you are greately underestimating the power of modern graphics cards or you are not deeply knowledgeable on the topic you are debating at the moment

The power of modern graphics cards is not the issue here though. The issue was whether it was a significant difference in compute performance needed, and where you said there were next to none, one of the most basic tasks required, rendering frames, was proved to be nearly twice as intensive.