AMD & NVIDIA GPU VR Performance in Trials on Tatooine (Non Gameworks)

[Unreal123]

First and foremost, the AMD Radeon R9 Fury X was a broken mess in ToT. Not only were our GPU Render Times much higher than we know they should be, the demo also broke towards the end. In much the same vein, the AMD RX 480 did not perform close to its claimed "premium VR" experience that rivals $500 video cards. Given that this is very much another high profile VR release, and is free as well, you think that AMD would be paying a bit more attention to this. It has been making bold claims about its VR performance with the RX 480 and we have seen those not hold up 2 out of 3 times. People that are buying the RX 480 for VR gaming today are going to be left wanting, if not downright frustrated.



All of the video cards from NVIDIA we covered in in Trails on Tatooine performed admirably. Probably the most impressive thing we saw was the TITAN X card's performance. Even GTX 1070 SLI could not best it, while GTX 1080 SLI was able to squeak by the TITAN X. That said, we don't know enough about VR SLI to pass judgment on scaling, but honestly I thought it would have been better than what we saw considering how it is designed to use one GPU to draw one eye, and one the other. There are still some latencies involved in the rendering pipeline, but I expected to see scaling that was a bit better. While the GTX 1060 did not keep us out of Reprojection fully, we only dipped into it around 15% of the time, so the overall experience was good without much frame judder artifacting, but it was there when Reprojection was on. The GTX 1070, GTX 1080, and GTX TITAN X were all fast enough to provide the best Trials on Tatooine experience possible. While the experiences were the same across those cards, the geek side of me has to gawk a bit at those GPU Render Times from the TITAN X and GTX 1080 SLI. Smoking fast!

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016...formance_in_trials_on_tatooine/6#.V62Bfa2XolA

 

[PhonakV30]

Deleted

 

[Erenhardt]

LOL
so much for premium VR.

I wonder what engines these games are made on.

Maybe it is driver issue? Did amd release any VR drivers yet?

 

[Dribble]

Perhaps the best VR *experience* there is right now, however [H] make it look like you need some super high end card to play it. I only have a 970 and it ran fine (although I didn't go looking for any special high settings options). I can't believe if you don't do any special fiddling with the settings a fury wouldn't run it.

That said that is the advantage of a 970 - it's popularity mean it basically became the card all these early VR games were tested to run with. That is key if you are looking to buy this sort of stuff - use the kit game devs make sure will work well. VR is almost like a console in that much of the hardware if fixed (resolution, required fps, etc). Valve have stated the required kit is an i5 and a 970 so devs make sure every game they release works on that. Not in their interests to go higher yet if they want a market to sell too.

With that i mind if you were to buy a new gpu for VR you've got to guess the next *required* spec. My bet would be a 1070 (as it's got very good VR performance, is very popular and isn't too expensive).

 

[antihelten]

LOL
so much for premium VR.

I wonder what engines these games are made on.

Maybe it is driver issue? Did amd release any VR drivers yet?

[H] has tested 3 games so far:

Raw Data - Unreal Engine 4 (uses VRWorks and GameWorks)
Call of Starseed - Unity 5
Trials on Tatooine - Unreal Engine 4

Edit: based on this, it would appear that Trials on Tatooine does in fact use VRWorks.

 

[Erenhardt]

[H] has tested 3 games so far:

Raw Data - Unreal Engine 4 (uses VRWorks and GameWorks)
Call of Starseed - Unity 5
Trials on Tatooine - Unreal Engine 4

So I guess amd performance is within expectations in those engines

 

[Keysplayr]

So I guess amd performance is within expectations in those engines

Yes, everything is all good with AMD. As always.


Trolling is not allowed
Markfw900

 

[SpaceBeer]

Are there any VR games with LiquidVR implementation?

 

[pj-]

I think as more VR games support mGPU, the more people will realize it is not the performance savior.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I love that they are benchmarking VR but I wish they would add in a Hawaii card instead of Fury.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

 

[Erenhardt]

Yes, everything is all good with AMD. As always.

I didn't say that. Putting words into someone's mouth is against rules and can get you banned.
But I forgive you this time. Don't thank me.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

I didn't say that. Putting words into someone's mouth is against rules and can get you banned.
But I forgive you this time. Don't thank me.

Just remember, sticks and stones man. Sticks and stones.

I'm still unconvinced VR has enough relevance to the masses and to those considering card upgrades. If the requirements to preform well in these titles are $400+ GPU and $800+ Vive, I'd wager 8 or 9 out of 10 people forgo VR based on price alone.

 

[Headfoot]

Seems fairly broken on AMD - hopefully there is a driver or engine update coming to fix that atrocious performance (at least on Fury X)

 

[Bacon1]

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/07/25/vr-helps-power-ilmxlabs/

With a pipeline full of great content, ILMxLAB artists rely on HP Z Workstations equipped with NVIDIA Quadro professional GPUs to move fast. Using NVIDIA VRWorks VR SLI technology, which allows multiple GPUs to be assigned to specific eyes, they’ve dramatically accelerated stereo rendering.

How is this not Gameworks / VRWorks exactly? Pretty misleading OP.

 

[Phynaz]

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/07/25/vr-helps-power-ilmxlabs/



How is this not Gameworks / VRWorks exactly? Pretty misleading OP.

What's the diff? These are the engines that VR games are using. AMD needs to run them well. It's not the engines fault AMD underperforms, it's AMD's fault.

 

[Bacon1]

What's the diff? These are the engines that VR games are using. AMD needs to run them well.

Which game? Or did you mean the few minute tech demo that we are discussing in this thread? Also the title states "Not Gameworks" which is false.

It's not the engines fault AMD underperforms, it's AMD's fault.

Yes it is. If the engine isn't properly utilizing the hardware, it is completely the engine's fault for doing bad on said hardware.

 

[Phynaz]

Same argument has been used for underperforming AMD CPU's, "the software isn't optimized for them". While it screams in Intel CPU's.

AMD needs to design their devices to run the most popular applications well. One of those happens to be the Unreal engine, which is probably the most used game engine of all time for AAA titles.

If AMD's GPU's can't run AAA engines well, it's AMD's problem, not the other way around. The game publishers wont suffer, AMD will.

 

[PhonakV30]

Unreal engine is not optimized for AMD cards.how about Frostbit or CryEngine?

 

[Phynaz]

Unreal engine is not optimized for AMD cards.how about Frostbit or CryEngine?

Isn't Unreal the biggest console engine?

 

[PhonakV30]

Why console ? how about PC version ?

 

[Phynaz]

Why console ? how about PC version ?

Same engine. And the consoles are all AMD based.

 

[Thala]

Same engine. And the consoles are all AMD based.

If it would be same engine as on Xbox One it would use DX12.
So it is more than unlikely that you have the PC version of the engine running on Xbox One (and vice versa)

 

[Phynaz]

If it would be same engine as on Xbox One it would use DX12.
So it is more than unlikely that you have the PC version of the engine running on Xbox One (and vice versa)

Huh? Its the same engine. Unreal on consoles uses VR Gameworks.

Did you think Epic developes a different engine for every platform it runs on?

 

[PhonakV30]

nope , Console =! PC.

Did you forget what happened to ROTTR?

 

[Bacon1]

nope , Console =! PC.

Did you forget what happened to ROTTR?

They removed DX12 optimizations and partnered up with Nvidia & gameworks.