SteamVR Performance Test: 16 GPUs Compared

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good read.

With how expensive VR headsets are right now, I don't understand why you would pair it with such a budget friendly GPU in the first place. If you can pay $500 for a VR headset, you should be able to buy at least a GTX 970 too.
 
You could buy well more than a GTX 970. For a true VR experience, for the most immersive, I think you will want a GTX 980 minimum, preferably an R9 Nano to 980Ti. Any type of slight frame drop is a major loss of immersion.
 


I would probably favor the Fury Nano or Fury over a 980 since VR headsets have very high res displays.
 
Because I have an i7-2600k (running at 4.8Ghz), I apparently don't meet the minimum requirements for Oculus Rift. Really?
Click to expand...
They don't really bother checking your CPU. If it's older gen, they automatically assume it sucks. funny thing is that I also run a 2600k @ 4.8Ghz and even systemrequirementslab says my CPU can't run latest games (not in VR). Yet I play everything on Ultra...
 
Is some of this based off architecture? My 780 is superclocked and can easily compete with a 970 yet only gets 4.5 in the test and is "capable". Or will it be fine when it actually comes to playing games?
 


I'm glad you liked it.
It was quite an effort to do, but I felt it was info that people would want to know.
 
AMD./Nvidia should offer VR-ready cards at a discount to get people started. VR-only so as not to affect normal sales. It's definitely in their interest. Or they could apply for government subsidies considering VR's potential public services. I'd vote for it :)
 


That's a great question.
I didn't have a GTX 780 to test, so I couldn't test that out.
I was very curious myself about the score, but your CPU will play a roll in the overall score. If you're running an AMD CPU it may not have the single thread computation power to keep up.

It's also importatnt to keep in mind that your GTX 780, while comparable to a 970, does not actually keep up with a 970 in all tests.
According to Nvidia's own graph, even the Titan is bested by the 970 in 3DMark FireStrike.
http://international.download.nvidia.com/webassets/en_US/shared/images/products/shared/lineup-full.png
 


You can't make a VR-only GPU. Any GPU capable of VR games, would be capable for regular games.

The price of VR ready hardware will come down as technology progresses. It's no different than it was before.
The graphics card that launch this year will be more powerful (as they always are) at lower price points. VR-ready GPUs will be available for much cheaper in half a year to a year.

Making GPUs more affordable now doesn't do anyone any good. VR HMDs are already selling out well beyond thier release date. There's only so many of them that can be produced at a time.
that will change over time too, but there's no incentive to lower prices when they are already selling out what they can produce. GPU manufacturers are aware of this fact.
 
I think the benchmark is awful and fairly useless...misleading at best. The article here is still useful though, in as much as you can get an idea of RELATIVE performance between video cards.

I have a system I consider in NO WAY capable of VR. It's a i7 2600K, SSD, 16 GB ram, and 780ti (upgraded from a 580ti 2 yrs ago). It comes out at the top of the 'capable' range.
Running this test implies my system would be fine if I upgraded the video card. That's ridiculous. If I did that, it would likely puke all over the floor the first time I tried to actually use it with a VR game.
Valve, who I think highly of, wiggles out of any responsibility by saying "oh, but we didn't test your CPU".
I wonder how much backlash they are going to get when people reference this benchmark, while complaining about vomit (theirs or their systems) from trying to play an actual game in VR.
 
The score for the 295x2 is wrong, there is a manual setting for in SteamVR that enables proper Crossfire use, my 295x2 with a 2600K @ 4.8ghz gets a score of 9.7, after changing the setting, before making the change I get the score listed above.
 

For VR to become relevant, it has to be affordable enough for the non-enthusiast to get interested in it, which means budget-minded gamers need to know how much it might cost them to get there.

If VR ever becomes a mainstream thing, you might see headsets going for as low as $100: even entry-level smartphones have most of the technology bits required built-in. Rip out the SoC, RAM, battery, WiFi/3G/4G, SIM, SDCard, touch sensor, etc. and you have plenty of budget left to mold the head mount and optics from. There might even be enough budget for a higher resolution display or a pair of 2" ones instead of splitting a single 5".
 
VR HMDs are already selling out well beyond thier release date. GPU manufacturers are aware of this fact.
Click to expand...

But are they upgrading thier PCs for a good experience. Bad experiences could turn people off and then there goes PC sales anyway. AMD/ Nvida could think of discounts as insurance...well just throwing that out, yea I know, not going to happen.
 
The score for the 295x2 is wrong, there is a manual setting in SteamVR that enables proper Crossfire use, my 295x2 with a 2600K @ 4.8ghz gets a score of 9.7, after changing the setting, before making the change I got the score listed above.
Click to expand...

I believe the setting is the -vrforce set in Steam command line setting for the benchmark. I don't have access to my PC at the moment to confirm. The Steam forum is where you can find more details. Also, for reference, the AMD driver version I ran this benchmark was Crimson 16.2.1, on Windows 10 Pro, current regular build.
 
With my GTX 970 at 1450MHz and CPU at 4GHz (Phenom II x6 1075T) I can only manage a low 7.9

http://i.imgur.com/JU8H5Et.jpg

Really, anything lower than SLI GTX 980ti (overclocked to 1.5-1.6GHz) is too low for VR. With a 90FPS minimum (with the consequences of going below it meaning that you will start to feel sick), You will either have VR games which very little on the screen, and very small view distances, or you will have open world with PlayStation 1 style graphics.

For the vast majority of people, I recommend ignoring VR until video cards get at least 5 times more powerful than they are now. The cost of VR will also be lower as the companies become more willing to accept profit margins that are not beyond astronomical.
 
Yeah, my 6700k and Zotac Amp Extreme 980 ti got the same result as in the article. Is 11 the maximum? It seems odd that the double 980 ti would get the exact same score. The amp extreme is good, but not that good.
 

For VR to become relevant, it has to be affordable enough for the non-enthusiast to get interested in it, which means budget-minded gamers need to know how much it might cost them to get there.

If VR ever becomes a mainstream thing, you might see headsets going for as low as $100: even entry-level smartphones have most of the technology bits required built-in. Rip out the SoC, RAM, battery, WiFi/3G/4G, SIM, SDCard, touch sensor, etc. and you have plenty of budget left to mold the head mount and optics from. There might even be enough budget for a higher resolution display or a pair of 2" ones instead of splitting a single 5".
Click to expand...

Most VR headsets could easily be priced in a budget friendly fashion, the reason why it is so expensive is that the companies are in their early adopter tax mode, where they seek an extremely high profit margin to maximize profits from the rich people before accepting a slightly smaller profit margin from everyone else.

If they were to price the headsets as if the technology was hear to stay (long term stability and profits rather than a short term windfall), then you could probably see kits like a GTX 970+ HTC vive for $450 (entry level VR kit)

Or promotions such as buy a GTX 980ti for $600 and get a "free" HTC vive + 2 "free" AAA games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom