VRMark now available

[porina]

Quote

Futuremark's VRMark is available today via Steam or directly from Futuremark.

Via https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/VRMark-arrives

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/vrmark

 

Up to now we've only had the SteamVR benchmark to indicate if a system might be "VR ready" and now we have another tool to ignite forum arguments on what is or isn't good enough for VR. It will be interesting to see if the results line up with practical cases, particularly on the lower end of the hardware spectrum.

[Guest]

I thought VR porn was a way to measure your device's capability to drive VR /s

 

[Davehaslanded]

I'm a little bit annoyed that this hasn't been included with the premium version of 3Dmark. Its not that expensive anyway and it seems so silly it being its own program.

[Cela1]

2 minutes ago, Davehaslanded said:

I'm a little bit annoyed that this hasn't been included with the premium version of 3Dmark. Its not that expensive anyway and it seems so silly it being its own program.

Yea

I can kind of see why though.

[porina]

Just now, Davehaslanded said:

I'm a little bit annoyed that this hasn't been included with the premium version of 3Dmark. Its not that expensive anyway and it seems so silly it being its own program.

Know what you mean... the put the preview version in there after all. They still need a revenue stream...

 

I've run a small selection of benchmarks now. The score is proportional to the average fps reported, with the target 109fps scaled to 5000 points. I'll just list the scores.

3521: i3-4360 HT off @ 3.7 + 1060 3GB

5768: i3-4360 HT on @ 3.7 + 1060 3GB

5430: E5-2683v3 @ 2.3 + 970

8989: i5-6600k @ 4.2 + 980 Ti

9008: i7-6700k HT on @ 4.2 + 1070

9094: i7-6700k HT on @ 4.2 + 980 Ti

 

Given a 970 was stated to be the minimum GPU, it seems the 1060 3GB is able to match it. Both are rated about the same flops at nvidia boost clocks, so they would be expected to be similar. Likewise, the 1070 and 980Ti are similar in flops, and are similar again here.

[Davehaslanded]

4 minutes ago, Cela1 said:

Yea

I can kind of see why though.

But I've already paid them once for their flagship benchmark tool. And I get how business works; reach market saturation and come up with a new product. But why couldn't this just be a paid add on for 3dmark. The program is already modular in which benchmarks you install anyway. 

[porina]

I ran it on my laptop this morning... this is i7-6700HQ and 970M, so the GPU is below a desktop 970 and closer to a desktop 960. It scored around 3700 but I don't have the exact number with me. It was interesting it said this was adequate for the Rift, which has slightly lower requirements than the Vive I do have. By trying it I do know the laptop isn't up to driving the Vive. Still, VRMark caution about the performance with Rift.

[Doobeedoo]

To me this benchmark would be for like buying a new solid PC

[WereCat]

I don't have VR  Mark but my friend got it included together with his new GPU so I may borrow it from. him

[porina]

Just now, WereCat said:

I don't have VR  Mark but my friend got it included together with his new GPU so I may borrow it from. him

VRMark is available as a free demo so anyone can download and run. There is a paid for version with more features.

[WereCat]

Just now, porina said:

VRMark is available as a free demo so anyone can download and run. There is a paid for version with more features.

Oh. OK then. I will try it when I get home.

[unsubscribed]

Getting 9493 on my PC on Orange Room. Blue Room seems to be different story - only 1837. Now if only I had HTC Vive...

[porina]

 

8 hours ago, edsdrafts said:

Getting 9493 on my PC on Orange Room. Blue Room seems to be different story - only 1837. Now if only I had HTC Vive...

Ok, I paid for the full version. The test PC is very similar (6700k @ 4.2 GHz, Zotac 1070 FE), and it scored 9421 and 1799 (about 39 fps) respectively.

 

I like the following quote in the VRMark technical guide about blue room:

Quote

In fact, as of October 2016, no publicly available system running as sold is able to pass this test.

Maybe it is time for Linus to break out the quad Titan XPs and see if that'll give a usable framerate!

[porina]

I'm going through some CPU scaling tests right now. Orange Room is showing CPU scaling effects I'm still examining now. For now I can say HT will gain you score, so it seems to have some capability of using more than 4 threads. It doesn't fit into any behaviour I've seen before though... I haven't tried observing the CPU activity during a run yet. Around the 4 GHz ball park it looks like it is in the transition from being CPU dominant to GPU dominant. I do find it interesting that both for HT on and off cases, dropping from 4 to 3 GHz which is a 25% clock drop, both results in a 19% drop in scores. If it were CPU limiting on the higher end, I'd expect to see better scaling with HT off... for fun I also ran 2 cores at 4 GHz, with and without HT. Without HT, it really hurts performance scoring 4738. Turning HT on goes up to 7413, which is actually higher than 4x 3GHz HT off scoring 7366. HT on in that case was 7560. With 4 cores at 4 GHz it's over 9000. If we make the big assumption this benchmark is representative of real world VR apps, you might get away with a high clock i3.

 

Blue Room is purely GPU limited. I get around 1800 points regardless if I'm running 2 cores with HT off, or 4 cores with HT on.

[WereCat]

7420 score

with Orange Room.

 

Havent tried Blue Room because I havent bough VR Mark but looks like my PC is more than capable of handling both VR Headsets.

[AlTech]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 6:13 PM, porina said:

I ran it on my laptop this morning... this is i7-6700HQ and 970M, so the GPU is below a desktop 970 and closer to a desktop 960. It scored around 3700 but I don't have the exact number with me. It was interesting it said this was adequate for the Rift, which has slightly lower requirements than the Vive I do have. By trying it I do know the laptop isn't up to driving the Vive. Still, VRMark caution about the performance with Rift.

This pretty much lines up with Nvidia's claims on requirements.

 

For laptops, Nvidia requires a GTX 980M or GTX 1060 For Notebooks or better...

 

For desktops. GTX 980 or GTX 1060 or better.

[AlTech]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:32 AM, porina said:

Via https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/VRMark-arrives

http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/vrmark

 

Up to now we've only had the SteamVR benchmark to indicate if a system might be "VR ready" and now we have another tool to ignite forum arguments on what is or isn't good enough for VR. It will be interesting to see if the results line up with practical cases, particularly on the lower end of the hardware spectrum.

Are you fucking serious?

 

I paid for 3D Mark and now I have to pay for VR Mark?

 

Did I miss April 1st or something? Cos this is bad joke.

[porina]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

This pretty much lines up with Nvidia's claims on requirements.

 

For laptops, Nvidia requires a GTX 980M or GTX 1060 For Notebooks or better...

 

For desktops. GTX 980 or GTX 1060 or better.

I've not been able to verify your claim of a 980 requirement from nvidia as a quick search only shows the 1060 listed. If I run GeForce Experience on my 970 system, it says that GPU is VR ready (but the Xeon CPU I have isn't).

 

If you also look at Rift and Vive minimum specs, they also both state 970.

 

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Are you fucking serious?

 

I paid for 3D Mark and now I have to pay for VR Mark?

 

Did I miss April 1st or something? Cos this is bad joke.

You ask them if they're serious. I don't come up with the pricing. 3DMark is a separate product from VRMark. Further note the free demo version of VRMark gives you the useful info anyway. The extra test in the paid version is so punishing it isn't worth running. Maybe a high end SLI setup could do it half well, and if you can afford a high end SLI setup don't complain to me about not having cash.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, porina said:

I've not been able to verify your claim of a 980 requirement from nvidia as a quick search only shows the 1060 listed. If I run GeForce Experience on my 970 system, it says that GPU is VR ready (but the Xeon CPU I have isn't).

OOps. My bad. It's 970 for desktop OR 1060

1 minute ago, porina said:

If you also look at Rift and Vive minimum specs, they also both state 970.

 

You ask them if they're serious. I don't come up with the pricing. 3DMark is a separate product from VRMark. Further note the free demo version of VRMark gives you the useful info anyway. The extra test in the paid version is so punishing it isn't worth running. Maybe a high end SLI setup could do it half well, and if you can afford a high end SLI setup don't complain to me about not having cash.

Well I definitely don't have the money for SLI, let alone a new single GPU.

[AlTech]

Just so everybody understands how silly this is:

 

[Chasem121]

VRMARK doesn't seem to play well with Crossfire, running a single of my 290s hits almost exactly the recommended fps but running both at once dragged the fps down by 30.

IMO if there is one program that should be optimized for crossfire, it should be a VR benchmark.

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

OOps. My bad. It's 970 for desktop OR 1060

Well I definitely don't have the money for SLI, let alone a new single GPU.

occulus rift requires 960 or 380. or equivalent GPUs now.

[porina]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

Just so everybody understands how silly this is:

 

Note there's two discounts there, which are the two I got too. One is 25% off as a "just launched" offering. The other is another 25% off if you already own 3DMark Advanced. So if you get it soon, it is half price. Unless you're going to do a lot of testing for whatever reason, it isn't worth it. For average people, download the demo. Get a score. Look at it a bit, and you're done.

 

I'm wrapping up my testing on CPU scaling in this benchmark and will try to summarise it shortly.

[porina]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

occulus rift requires 960 or 380. or equivalent GPUs now.

Ooh, they didn't update all of their website as the page I found still said 970, but now I've found another saying 960 (and i3-6100). 

[Bouzoo]

56 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Are you fucking serious?

 

I paid for 3D Mark and now I have to pay for VR Mark?

 

Did I miss April 1st or something? Cos this is bad joke.

It was almoat the same for TimeSpy. You got it, but the version that test only the demo. Want any advanced features? That'll be $10.