Are You Ready For VR? Take Our Survey!

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's kind of rough when I meet the recommended specs in everything but my CPU, the I5-4460, is one hair down from a 4590. I'm sure it's fine.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm still on a i5 760, but OCed to 3.6GHz (all cores) and 4 GHz turbo. Pretty sure it's more than good enough. Certainly it was perfectly fine on the Oculus DK2 I tried.
 
Built my system with Oculus specs in mind. Since my pre-order won't ship until July anyway I haven't bought a video card yet; hoping that Polaris will be available at approximately the same time and it will have the necessary performance. If not I guess I will buy a Nvidia.
 
My specs match almost everything but the GPU capabilities for VR. I have an I7-4820K, Win 10, and 12 GB of Ram, it would be 16 but after my bios got corrupted and I had to Re-Flash it for the computer to work, now one of my ram slots is faulty so I only have 12gb to run with. So if I was to run VR I would most likely get a new MOBO, CPU, and Graphics card, cause a 770 just doesn't cut it for VR.
 
My system meets almost nothing except maybe HTC Vive's USB 2.0 and Windows 7 64-bit requirements. Oh, and HDMI ports. Well, and 4GB memory.

I think VR will be popular when following happens:
-Intel/AMD BOTH makes VR capable APUs, and not ridiculously expensive. $200?
-Decent VR headsets come down to $300.
 
IntelDiesel,
Your "100FPS" doesn't represent all games at the recommended settings. The specs are also based on 90FPS at a different resolution (the resolution may be comparable though as it's a much lower but has to be doubled (two eyes).

Long story short is that for some games you'll have a much lower frame rate, perhaps as low as 60FPS when you should be getting 90FPS.

Of course you can drop the game quality settings a bit. It is a PC after all.
 
Well, I meet all the pc specs, but I'm not going to blow $800aud until it's at least available to try in the shops. I have no idea what it will be like although I've tried google cardboard and obviously wasn't impressed. I want to be completely immersed with photorealistic graphics. Having said that, I have a Samsung s7 coming with gear vr, but the survey didn't ask about non-pc based vr.
 
there is no pc hardware that will push 90 per eye in games without serious downgrades in visuals, and vr will not sell enough to make devs make working vr (as in its pushing 90 frames at vr recommended specs) a priority and i seriously doubt next gen gpus will make up the difference... maybe when we can push 4k 60 without downgrading visuals at all (outside of just removing aa) on a single gpu, that will be when hardware will catch up to vr, but god knows vr will move to 4k screens at that point and make it even more difficult for the hardware to push at the recommended fps.
 
Depends what you mean by VR. If you mean full field of view, no screen door effect, and enough fps to not cause one to puke....NOPE! No one can meet those specs, the computer hardware doesnt exist to meet them, and wont for quite some time to come.

If you mean a lower class of VR...well anyone can meet VR at various spec levels. So, again it depends! If you mean what oculus is trying to pass as VR, almost, but i dont consider that the minimum hardware for good VR, there is a lot lacking from crop of headsets about to come out. So, ya ill wait untill we have computer hardware to make VR not suck.
 


for me it's 720p native per eye, i require the native resolution to be low as that will give me overall the best visuals, apposed to upscaling which looks horrible unless its something like 4k per eye, then 4 1080 or 9 720p screens would make that upscale, look pretty ok.

i really don't want vr to shoot itself in the foot, but i honestly think its going to.
 
Haven't upgraded my system yet for VR because:

1) 4670K should be fine for minimum requirement
2) Waiting for Broadwell-E to upgrade my system for i7-6800K
3) Waiting for new round of AMD and NVIDIA GPUs to determine which would be better suited for VR
 
As a few others have said everything but CPU... I have a 980 ti, 16GB of ram, 1.5TB of SSD's but the CPU is a second Gen i7 2600 which runs everything just fine... just don't want to practically throw away a perfectly good Motherboard, CPU and Memory
 
I'm good but I'm not even going to consider buying something until I see some good reviews and know there is enough content out there that I will actually make use of for it to be worth it for me to pay the extra ~$600+.
 


no, 3d tv died due to content, movies being majority post conversion and not truly 3d shot, when you see actual 3d, its amazing and you can see it as a worthwhile thing, but so little uses it that its hard to justify... at least if you have a 3d tv you have an actual 120 hrz at least screen (possibly 2 60hrz screens with different polarities, not sure if this ever took off)

with vr, we already have the content, videogames, and more content can be made, either 3d video, or very widely shot video where even though its 2d, still gives you the ability to look around at least to some extent.

where vr can and likely will fail is the resolution they are pushing in these things are stupidly large for the framerate they want to achieve.

i mean people complain about screen doors, the people who say that have never had a meaningful experience with vr where they can see "yea, ill use this over a normal monitor" hell, lets go racing games, i would dip down to 480p per eye or even just a single 480p non 3d just for the access angle changing on head movement alone, i honestly think many games will benefit from that... hell, look at the divisions eyetracking thing, if that actually works good, i could easily see a head mounted axis with eye tracking completely replacing the mouse, or the mouse being used as a VERY fine adjustment for aiming.

there is so much potential, but the hardware you need is stupidly high end right now, and even that hardware cant push vr the way they want to.

on top of if vr doesn't sell the numbers they want to, then what incentive is there for devs to hold graphics back or optimize the game to hit 90 per eye? the devs could easily say screw it, if it works it works if it doesn't we never intended it to be a vr game in the first place. with the only games that really push for the optimization being simulators, but these are also games that get features built in for people who have 30-90 grand to drop on hardware for them.
 
update, I ran Steams VR test application and my system blew through it without an issues so a second gen i7 2600 is just fine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom