Basemark's VRScore Benchmark Suite: 6 VR HMDs Tested

[kcarbotte]

Basemark’s long-awaited virtual reality benchmarking tool, VRScore, is finally available. This piece of software is the first of its kind, allowing you to properly evaluate your PC's ability to serve up VR content.

Basemark's VRScore Benchmark Suite: 6 VR HMDs Tested : Read more

 

[Piki__]

Comparing GTX 1080 vs RX 480? HOw unfair can you be. Compare to GTX 1060!

 

[kcarbotte]

Comparing GTX 1080 vs RX 480? HOw unfair can you be. Compare to GTX 1060!

This isn't a GPU comparison. The article's scope is to show what VRScore is all about.

 

[Piki__]

Comparing GTX 1080 vs RX 480? HOw unfair can you be. Compare to GTX 1060!

This isn't a GPU comparison. The article's scope is to show what VRScore is all about. [/quotemsg

That is irrelevant, it would be much better seerved by including a GTX 1060 as well.

 

[kcarbotte]

Comparing GTX 1080 vs RX 480? HOw unfair can you be. Compare to GTX 1060!

This isn't a GPU comparison. The article's scope is to show what VRScore is all about.

That is irrelevant, it would be much better seerved by including a GTX 1060 as well.

I would have liked to, but there are two problems with that.
I didn't have any more time to run more benchmarks. You have to run each pass 5 times per HMD. More GPUs would mean less HMDs. I cover VR, so the HMDs were my priority.

The other problem, and this one's the kicker, is that I don't have a GTX 1060. In fact, the two GPUs that I used are the only two current generation cards that I have access to.
Our GPU reviewers receive the graphics card samples, most of which go to Igor in Germany.

 

[thor220]

If you are trying to appear objective you are doing a poor job of it

"Gigabyte's GTX 1080 G1 Gaming has no trouble maintaining roughly 90 FPS with the Rift and Vive, but PowerColor's RX 480 struggled to keep up."

It should be thoroughly noted in this article that the RX 480 is not AMD's top end offering and that the GTX 1080 and RX 480 are in a different price class. Yet we have here you giving AMD the business for something that should have been obvious from the onset. While you do note that the RX 480 and GTX 1080 are in a different class you only do so in regular font in a text swamp. Something that important should at least be in bold.

I could also nitpick how the Nvidia card is always above the AMD one or that it's charts come before the AMD ones in the 2nd half, which effects presence of mind. Likely you are projecting your own preference in this instance, perhaps without even knowing.

 

[rhysiam]

Thanks for the article, it will be interesting to see how these new benchmarks come together.

To those annoyed by the RX 480 vs 1080 comparison, I think you're completely missing the point. The article clearly states in the title that's it's testing HMDs and trialling a new benchmarking suite. On the methodology page there's a short and very clear paragraph stating that a future article comparing GPUs is in the works (looking forward to that, btw). And it's very clearly and explicitly stated that the goal of this article is NOT testing GPUs. Then, in exploring the results of the benchmark (necessary to see how the new benchmark suite works) we see a GTX 1080 performing better than an RX 480. So what!? 480s start at less than 1/3rd the price. Maybe Nvidia fans should get angry because the 480 achieves ~70% of the 1080s performance at 30% of the price? Or perhaps you could blame the author because they're perpetuating the perception that Nvidia cards are overpriced by only demonstrating the high end (and arguably overpriced) model?

No, this is an interesting introduction to a new benchmark, clearly labelled as such, and IMHO a worthwhile read. To be blunt, if someone just looks at a few of the charts without reading the article and concludes that Nvidia > AMD, then that's entirely their own fault.

 

[WFang]

For a review that purports to be about the HMD's, I found the lack of for example photon delay data for each HMD glaring.

Also, this test tool overall seems to miss the mark for what I was hoping for. This does not appear to be very helpful when it comes to comparing HMD's which in my opinion is what we need more. Figuring out what hardware works best is important, but can be approximated by looking at e.g. 4k game tests already.

As for the differences in render vs display resolution, it would be nice if it was possible to force rendering to the display native resolution and/or the lowest resolution HMD in the test round-up.

 

[bit_user]

I'm surprised they didn't just use USB 3, for the light sensor module.

As for the differences in render vs display resolution, it would be nice if it was possible to force rendering to the display native resolution

Until they address this, it seems the tool is useless at characterizing what a user of that HMD would actually experience.

Apparently, 6 months' delay wasn't enough. It's still not ready for use.

That said, I look forward to downloading it for the eye candy.

 

[sleven]

Running HDK 1.3 at 2880x1620 pixels seems to be a major handicap in this test. An overfill of 1.5x from the native 1080p resolution seems like an arbitrary setting, but I guess it's used because it was on "by default" depending on how the server was installed. Setting "renderOverfillFactor" to 1.0 would run at the HDK 1.3's native resolution of 1920x1080. 1.5x overfill is overkill for HDK.

 

[sleven]

HDK 1.4* is interchangeable with HDK 1.3 in this case