'Shadow Of Mordor' Benchmark Running In VR With Vireio Perception Drivers

[kcarbotte]

Progress on DX11 support for Vireio Perception continues. The group released a new video demonstrating a working build running "Middle Earth: Shadow Of Mordor"

'Shadow Of Mordor' Benchmark Running In VR With Vireio Perception Drivers : Read more

 

[dstarr3]

Such a shame for VR. It really is very necessary to have really high resolution displays, and really high framerates, and really good detail rendered. VR is awesome tech, but it really is going to demand just the highest-spec hardware to give the best experience.

 

[hannibal]

Well, this just proof, that VR is best suited to DX12 and above. But we all also know that VR needs hefty strong hardware also in DX12. Why would you need for example double Fury aka Gemini to run VR... Just because it is so hard to do!

 

[lyricyst2000]

Bummer...good luck convincing the masses that the ever popular i5 + 390/970 combo probably isnt going to cut it.

 

[photonboy]

Good news for the PC world!
You want a great VR experience, the current minimum is GTX970 and that will increase as higher resolution displays come out (remember it's not total pixel count of the screen but pixels per eye, though some of its optimized a bit different).

Even if you don't buy into VR it's always a good thing to have money dumped into an ecosystem you want kept around.

I'm curious what titles for the current consoles will look like in VR due to the processing power required to do it right (i.e. 90FPS, low refresh to avoid feeling nauseous). I know PS4 is getting Eve Valkyrie but don't know any specs on that.

 

[kcarbotte]

Bummer...good luck convincing the masses that the ever popular i5 + 390/970 combo probably isnt going to cut it.

Any game that is made specifically for VR will be fine with that combo.
Shadow of Mordor in particular is a super demanding game already, and never optimized for 90fps playback.
This is par for the course when converting existing games to VR, but shouldn't be expected for regular VR titles.

 

[Enterfrize]

Hi everyone,

It's Neil Schneider from MTBS (from the Vireio team).

I just wanted to put these numbers in perspective. These results are actually very, very good, and there are more optimizations to come. In practice, true stereoscopic 3D games lose about 50% of their performance because a unique left and right camera view is being rendered where there used to only be one. Existing VR games face the exact same challenge, and they compensate for this loss of performance by scraping away a lot of the processor-intensive eye candy and use other techniques like asynchronous timewarp (ATW) to try and pad the frame count with guesstimates of what the intermediary frames should look like.

Vireio Perception users will choose the in-game graphics settings that are right for them and what their equipment can handle. This benchmark was based on either the bare minimum or the absolute maximum game settings choices for this title, and it proved that the performance loss maxes out at less than 50% for true stereoscopic 3D rendering on this hardware - this is a good thing and is well within industry standard.

Features like ATW will help with this, and we also have some other experimental ideas we will be playing with later that haven't been tried before. What matters most right now is DX11 is alive and kicking with true stereoscopic 3D rendering in Vireio Perception.

Patience!

Regards,
Neil

 

[gofasterstripes]

It's pretty cool you came here to write that

 

[Symple]

This benchmark was based on either the bare minimum or the absolute maximum game settings choices for this title, and it proved that the performance loss maxes out at less than 50% for true stereoscopic 3D rendering on this hardware - this is a good thing and is well within industry standard.

I find it rather odd that the benchmarks for mono are identical whether running the lowest or highest settings. What is the explanation for this? Was this test performed with V-Sync turned on, thereby artificially capping the FPS, or is the FX8350 very accurately bottlenecking the GPU at this point?

 

[loki1944]

I have not found the SoM benchmark to be anywhere close to a good representation of how the game actually performs (i.e., performance in-game significantly less and/or stuttering involved). I'd be more interested if they bench-marked in-game.

 

[Enterfrize]

This benchmark was based on either the bare minimum or the absolute maximum game settings choices for this title, and it proved that the performance loss maxes out at less than 50% for true stereoscopic 3D rendering on this hardware - this is a good thing and is well within industry standard.

I find it rather odd that the benchmarks for mono are identical whether running the lowest or highest settings. What is the explanation for this? Was this test performed with V-Sync turned on, thereby artificially capping the FPS, or is the FX8350 very accurately bottlenecking the GPU at this point?

 

[Enterfrize]

Sorry about the above double quote post. I noticed the 60FPS cap too on 2D performance. I'll try to find out. I don't think it has anything to do with a CPU limitation.

Regards,
Neil

 

[photonboy]

I believe there is a HARDWARE chip and standards in development to optimize for rendering to both eyes.

I don't have a link but I would guess the hardware method needs the game to be made with the hardware's software plugin, and that it would allow to render mostly like normal but create assets OFFSET by a known amount for minimal overhead beyond normal rendering (at the resolution of a single eye).

I think there are dual-GPU cards coming with a hardware chip on the same board. Lots of interesting stuff coming!

Other:
Back to THIS ARTICLE... Is there going to be an official solution that works with all existing games, or do groups have to make agreements to work on a particular game?

I got the impression doing this correctly was a bit time consuming, though there would be varying levels of optimization.

 

[alidan]

Such a shame for VR. It really is very necessary to have really high resolution displays, and really high framerates, and really good detail rendered. VR is awesome tech, but it really is going to demand just the highest-spec hardware to give the best experience.

i speak as someone who had 320x240 per eye vr on their head when it was still crts, people speak of screen doors, i had what should have been the worst screen door effect on my head possible, yet it was not really noticeable in motion. it's a lot like how i see jaggies, moving to 1920x1080 from ps1 and dos games like carmageddon in software renderer (what i see as the best way to render and play the game) i don't see jaggies as an issue and they are pretty much unnoticeable while games are in motion without aa. i personally don't think i will move to gaming at higher than 1920x1080/1200 till the processing requirements for higher resolutions are trivial.

what i don't like is how much vr is pushing the resolution higher and higher, while knowing damn well almost no one has the processing power to deal with it, sure i could probably set the resolution lower and it will scale... but you play a game at 720p full screen and tell me that looks good? hell, if you have an actualy 720p display, play it on that and mirror it to the higher res one, it scales like crap.

im hopeing someone makes quality vr hardware but puts in a low resolution screen, that seems like it would have the best balance between quality and playability right now.

 

[photonboy]

Such a shame for VR. It really is very necessary to have really high resolution displays, and really high framerates, and really good detail rendered. VR is awesome tech, but it really is going to demand just the highest-spec hardware to give the best experience.

i speak as someone who had 320x240 per eye vr on their head when it was still crts, people speak of screen doors, i had what should have been the worst screen door effect on my head possible, yet it was not really noticeable in motion. it's a lot like how i see jaggies, moving to 1920x1080 from ps1 and dos games like carmageddon in software renderer (what i see as the best way to render and play the game) i don't see jaggies as an issue and they are pretty much unnoticeable while games are in motion without aa. i personally don't think i will move to gaming at higher than 1920x1080/1200 till the processing requirements for higher resolutions are trivial.

what i don't like is how much vr is pushing the resolution higher and higher, while knowing damn well almost no one has the processing power to deal with it, sure i could probably set the resolution lower and it will scale... but you play a game at 720p full screen and tell me that looks good? hell, if you have an actualy 720p display, play it on that and mirror it to the higher res one, it scales like crap.

im hopeing someone makes quality vr hardware but puts in a low resolution screen, that seems like it would have the best balance between quality and playability right now.

I personally think they're doing it right. VR is meant to be an immersive experience, so why make the incredible hardware and software commitment but then put in a low-res screen and break presence?

Don't forget the screen is pretty close to your eyes so pixel density is even more important than ever.

The resolution isn't amazingly high for the Oculus Rift either because it's the per-eye resolution not total number of pixels, and even within that the closeness to eye means the edge pixels don't contribute the same way as a computer monitor or HDTV would further out.

(I'm not sure what that effectively works out to but I believe it's less than 1080x1200. Remember this is 3D so the GPU has to create 2x 90FPS outputs to drive this.)

There's already a minimum cost associated with the screen (90Hz, low-refresh to reduce nauseau), sensors, headphones etc.

The $600USD cost for the OR is what it costs Facebook to make. They aren't making any money.

Finally, GPU's will continue to advance. In fact, we have new GPU's coming later this year which will help drive down prices. In 2017 we may see a Zen/Polaris APU capable of meeting the min spec for VR that is fairly cheap, maybe even in a notebook.

Anyway, IMO the OR has been done exactly right for a first-gen consumer product of VR. It's a high quality product which is arguably reasonably priced and the GPU cost isn't prohibitive. Had they launched a low-resolution screen I think a lot more people would have complained about pushing VR headsets that we'll have to turn around and replace in short order because they aren't good enough.

Other:
If you want a low-cost entry into VR there will be cheaper options for smartphones, and probably on PC we'll see cheaper VR units though they may have issues if not updating at low-latency, min 90Hz.

 

[alidan]

Such a shame for VR. It really is very necessary to have really high resolution displays, and really high framerates, and really good detail rendered. VR is awesome tech, but it really is going to demand just the highest-spec hardware to give the best experience.

i speak as someone who had 320x240 per eye vr on their head when it was still crts, people speak of screen doors, i had what should have been the worst screen door effect on my head possible, yet it was not really noticeable in motion. it's a lot like how i see jaggies, moving to 1920x1080 from ps1 and dos games like carmageddon in software renderer (what i see as the best way to render and play the game) i don't see jaggies as an issue and they are pretty much unnoticeable while games are in motion without aa. i personally don't think i will move to gaming at higher than 1920x1080/1200 till the processing requirements for higher resolutions are trivial.

what i don't like is how much vr is pushing the resolution higher and higher, while knowing damn well almost no one has the processing power to deal with it, sure i could probably set the resolution lower and it will scale... but you play a game at 720p full screen and tell me that looks good? hell, if you have an actualy 720p display, play it on that and mirror it to the higher res one, it scales like crap.

im hopeing someone makes quality vr hardware but puts in a low resolution screen, that seems like it would have the best balance between quality and playability right now.

I personally think they're doing it right. VR is meant to be an immersive experience, so why make the incredible hardware and software commitment but then put in a low-res screen and break presence?

Don't forget the screen is pretty close to your eyes so pixel density is even more important than ever.

The resolution isn't amazingly high for the Oculus Rift either because it's the per-eye resolution not total number of pixels, and even within that the closeness to eye means the edge pixels don't contribute the same way as a computer monitor or HDTV would further out.

(I'm not sure what that effectively works out to but I believe it's less than 1080x1200. Remember this is 3D so the GPU has to create 2x 90FPS outputs to drive this.)

There's already a minimum cost associated with the screen (90Hz, low-refresh to reduce nauseau), sensors, headphones etc.

The $600USD cost for the OR is what it costs Facebook to make. They aren't making any money.

Finally, GPU's will continue to advance. In fact, we have new GPU's coming later this year which will help drive down prices. In 2017 we may see a Zen/Polaris APU capable of meeting the min spec for VR that is fairly cheap, maybe even in a notebook.

Anyway, IMO the OR has been done exactly right for a first-gen consumer product of VR. It's a high quality product which is arguably reasonably priced and the GPU cost isn't prohibitive. Had they launched a low-resolution screen I think a lot more people would have complained about pushing VR headsets that we'll have to turn around and replace in short order because they aren't good enough.

Other:
If you want a low-cost entry into VR there will be cheaper options for smartphones, and probably on PC we'll see cheaper VR units though they may have issues if not updating at low-latency, min 90Hz.

first off, a lower resolution screen would require less hardware.

second, with the screens being close to your face, well aware, had 320x240 really close to my face a long long time ago, its what originally made me excited for 3d, but then the first thing to come out was nvidias 3d that required vista, i was willing to drop enough money for the 3d glasses, new monitor, new gpu/cpu, but i was not going to use vista, and remember this was pre patched and working vista, by the time something not crap came along, my willingness to dive into 3d and my budget didn't allow for it to happen as vr was set to be happening soon... yea many years later and im still waiting on it.

90hz i'm fairly sure is higher refresh rate than 60
as for the screen, i would rather it be an off the shelf from a cellphone then custom made just to save on the cost, while im at it im really doubting the 90hz required claim too. im fairly sure i get simulator sickness, or at least its the closest thing that can explain why some games make me feel like crap, when i was a kid still playing n64, certain games hit me worse than others, one of them was glover. i know from first hand experience that you are able to power through that to the point its not a bother, there is probably no way in hell ill ever have a computer that will consistently push 90fps on anything new unless gameing just stagnates graphics for a while (and lets be serious here, they never will, look at the ps4 and one, neither system can get devs to stop pushing graphics so they can hit 1080p 60, what hope does pc have of ever getting a well done port with no issues that makes it perform worse than consoles where we have to throw hardware at it to solve the problem... or getting crap like gameworks added to purposely screw with how well a game runs) so i really want to have a vr headset for a few days just to see if i can get use to something like 5fps gameplay in vr (tower of guns has a bug where the longer your pc is on, the worse it plays, beat the game while it was going at 5fps... not fun but still proud of being able to do that)

yea, i don't believe it costs 600$ to make it, but we will know for sure when there is a breakdown.

yea, like i said above, there is no way in hell game developers will stagnate games for us... hell, 90 per eye, how many games currently run at 180fps at 1080p? may not be the best comparison as im sure the cpu load wont be as high as trying 90fps across 2 points of view, but still, even 90 is hard to push games to without either toning the game down to lowering the resolution, im not expecting miracles from zen or polaris, unless it comes with a standard clock rate of 4.5ghz, you will still need to oc the cpu, and as for the gpu... the high end may be able to do 4k 60 on a single gpu with minimal reduction in settings, but even then you are looking at a 600+$ gpu, along with a 350+$ cpu, around 100$ in ram not to mention whatever they charge for the motherboards, the price isn't getting driven down by much, and on the cpu side not at all. dx12 and vulcan should be able to get some more juice out of the cpu, but lets be honest, its going to be all on nvidia if anything happens, if they make an async architecture or not if that gets taken advantage of.

people are complaining that they don't have 4k monitors for them to use yet, and there are people complaining that they aren't using 4k per eye... you will always have people who complain that its not high enough end. also this is the first gen of vr, resolution doesn't matter they will be replaced in short order with newer or possibly even higher end versions.

yea, vr on smartphones is pointless, do not care about it, and if i remember right as of now, the only vr thing for phones is gear vr and it requires a 600-800$ phone.

as for lower end vr for pc, probably going to have to hope someone jumps in with a lower end solution, because the high end ones arent going to cut it for quite a while.

 

[Tommy Pearson III]

That is why they need to make a affordable GPU for everyone that can do the Job

In my case I always buy Highend not the Extreme Intel Highend but I go with the I7's every time and also 980's is a must I rock a Asus Rog Swift so you have to have all the right parts to make it work or your just fooling yourself ,I also thought they were going to make DX12 more GPU dependent which makes sense but they are also going to kill it twice as fast maxing 100% when you play

Pasqual should be coming out soon I am interested in it but I want to get a GPU for Three years not every year and right now even with Sli 980 G1's certain games kill them Games like The Witcher lol

 

[Tommy Pearson III]

Such a shame for VR. It really is very necessary to have really high resolution displays, and really high framerates, and really good detail rendered. VR is awesome tech, but it really is going to demand just the highest-spec hardware to give the best experience.

i speak as someone who had 320x240 per eye vr on their head when it was still crts, people speak of screen doors, i had what should have been the worst screen door effect on my head possible, yet it was not really noticeable in motion. it's a lot like how i see jaggies, moving to 1920x1080 from ps1 and dos games like carmageddon in software renderer (what i see as the best way to render and play the game) i don't see jaggies as an issue and they are pretty much unnoticeable while games are in motion without aa. i personally don't think i will move to gaming at higher than 1920x1080/1200 till the processing requirements for higher resolutions are trivial.

what i don't like is how much vr is pushing the resolution higher and higher, while knowing damn well almost no one has the processing power to deal with it, sure i could probably set the resolution lower and it will scale... but you play a game at 720p full screen and tell me that looks good? hell, if you have an actualy 720p display, play it on that and mirror it to the higher res one, it scales like crap.

im hopeing someone makes quality vr hardware but puts in a low resolution screen, that seems like it would have the best balance between quality and playability right now.

I personally think they're doing it right. VR is meant to be an immersive experience, so why make the incredible hardware and software commitment but then put in a low-res screen and break presence?

Don't forget the screen is pretty close to your eyes so pixel density is even more important than ever.

The resolution isn't amazingly high for the Oculus Rift either because it's the per-eye resolution not total number of pixels, and even within that the closeness to eye means the edge pixels don't contribute the same way as a computer monitor or HDTV would further out.

(I'm not sure what that effectively works out to but I believe it's less than 1080x1200. Remember this is 3D so the GPU has to create 2x 90FPS outputs to drive this.)

There's already a minimum cost associated with the screen (90Hz, low-refresh to reduce nauseau), sensors, headphones etc.

The $600USD cost for the OR is what it costs Facebook to make. They aren't making any money.

Finally, GPU's will continue to advance. In fact, we have new GPU's coming later this year which will help drive down prices. In 2017 we may see a Zen/Polaris APU capable of meeting the min spec for VR that is fairly cheap, maybe even in a notebook.

Anyway, IMO the OR has been done exactly right for a first-gen consumer product of VR. It's a high quality product which is arguably reasonably priced and the GPU cost isn't prohibitive. Had they launched a low-resolution screen I think a lot more people would have complained about pushing VR headsets that we'll have to turn around and replace in short order because they aren't good enough.

Other:
If you want a low-cost entry into VR there will be cheaper options for smartphones, and probably on PC we'll see cheaper VR units though they may have issues if not updating at low-latency, min 90Hz.

first off, a lower resolution screen would require less hardware.

second, with the screens being close to your face, well aware, had 320x240 really close to my face a long long time ago, its what originally made me excited for 3d, but then the first thing to come out was nvidias 3d that required vista, i was willing to drop enough money for the 3d glasses, new monitor, new gpu/cpu, but i was not going to use vista, and remember this was pre patched and working vista, by the time something not crap came along, my willingness to dive into 3d and my budget didn't allow for it to happen as vr was set to be happening soon... yea many years later and im still waiting on it.

90hz i'm fairly sure is higher refresh rate than 60
as for the screen, i would rather it be an off the shelf from a cellphone then custom made just to save on the cost, while im at it im really doubting the 90hz required claim too. im fairly sure i get simulator sickness, or at least its the closest thing that can explain why some games make me feel like crap, when i was a kid still playing n64, certain games hit me worse than others, one of them was glover. i know from first hand experience that you are able to power through that to the point its not a bother, there is probably no way in hell ill ever have a computer that will consistently push 90fps on anything new unless gameing just stagnates graphics for a while (and lets be serious here, they never will, look at the ps4 and one, neither system can get devs to stop pushing graphics so they can hit 1080p 60, what hope does pc have of ever getting a well done port with no issues that makes it perform worse than consoles where we have to throw hardware at it to solve the problem... or getting crap like gameworks added to purposely screw with how well a game runs) so i really want to have a vr headset for a few days just to see if i can get use to something like 5fps gameplay in vr (tower of guns has a bug where the longer your pc is on, the worse it plays, beat the game while it was going at 5fps... not fun but still proud of being able to do that)

yea, i don't believe it costs 600$ to make it, but we will know for sure when there is a breakdown.

yea, like i said above, there is no way in hell game developers will stagnate games for us... hell, 90 per eye, how many games currently run at 180fps at 1080p? may not be the best comparison as im sure the cpu load wont be as high as trying 90fps across 2 points of view, but still, even 90 is hard to push games to without either toning the game down to lowering the resolution, im not expecting miracles from zen or polaris, unless it comes with a standard clock rate of 4.5ghz, you will still need to oc the cpu, and as for the gpu... the high end may be able to do 4k 60 on a single gpu with minimal reduction in settings, but even then you are looking at a 600+$ gpu, along with a 350+$ cpu, around 100$ in ram not to mention whatever they charge for the motherboards, the price isn't getting driven down by much, and on the cpu side not at all. dx12 and vulcan should be able to get some more juice out of the cpu, but lets be honest, its going to be all on nvidia if anything happens, if they make an async architecture or not if that gets taken advantage of.

people are complaining that they don't have 4k monitors for them to use yet, and there are people complaining that they aren't using 4k per eye... you will always have people who complain that its not high enough end. also this is the first gen of vr, resolution doesn't matter they will be replaced in short order with newer or possibly even higher end versions.

yea, vr on smartphones is pointless, do not care about it, and if i remember right as of now, the only vr thing for phones is gear vr and it requires a 600-800$ phone.

as for lower end vr for pc, probably going to have to hope someone jumps in with a lower end solution, because the high end ones arent going to cut it for quite a while.

My OnePlusOne Smart phone does VR just fine and my Oneplus2 and they both combined cost $800.00 so no you don't need a $600.00 phone you just need to choose the right one I have a VR headset for my smartphone and it's amazing

I figured you probably haven't had the experience with that so this is why I am explaining to you it's not useless but they don't have much material right now Once VR porn is available on Smartphones it's going to blow up like a doll (Punchline)

Anyway VR is a cool concept but right now people don't really know what it is and don't know what kind of hardware to use with it to me it's just a better version of 3D