Could VR like Occulus cause a vid card price/power arms race soon?

[Skip4K.Go8KNow!]

Most unbiased people report current VR tech as at the point where everything has come together.

Oculus Rift seems excellent in extended play even on some games not made for it- minus the resolution and screen effects.

OLED tech means no screen door effects and near perfect clarity especially at 8K which is being run fine with some reducing of image loads using the equivalent of 4 titans. A dual screen setup at 4K would run with no tweaking on 4 titans. Even a standard LCD on Oculus Rift at 1080P is going to require a 780 in detailed games to maintain a 60 FPS and this would be in games made for VR. Getting those annoying FPS drops in VR can equal vomit.

If you see it at a chain try the OLED headset from Sony called the personal 3D viewer. Even at 720P- dual OLED in a headset and eventually glasses is the future.

 

[dsc106]

well, sounds like you've answered your own question

of course the rule is supply and demand. as long as there is consumer demand, then yes.

Occulus + new generation of consoles primes the pump for a lot of new GPU horsepower need... the next few years should be far more aggressive and demanding than the last few, would be my guess

 

[BrightCandle]

If we really need 4k for vr to work well then things haven't yet lined up. For 2d graphics the current generation can cope with 4k but for games its far too expensive. Even a generation jump isn't going to close that, its probably going to be 4 years before we see 4k be practical for gaming. So I sure hope it's fine at 1080p.

 

[ViRGE]

The question implies that we aren't currently in an arms race though, which isn't the case. We've been in an arms race since the start. AMD and NVIDIA have been one-uping each other for the last decade, to the point where the financially weaker party (AMD) is making just enough to fight another day. If that's not an arms race then I'm not sure what is?

 

[gorobei]

if you are asking if OR is likely to create demand for more gpu power the answer is no.

rift 2.0 has already settled on a 1920x1080 res and they have already sourced a panel maker for the run. given that they still have to solve the latency issues and add head translation to the rotation sensors, they are very unlikely to even be remotely thinking about 4k. the next version after 2.0 is more likely going to be a 2560x1440 panel given the number of 7"/8"/10" tablets coming out in 2560x.

the rift team needs to get a long production/sales run out to monetize their work. the 1080p version needs to coincide with new games like starcitizen/MW/hawken/or any of the other big name car or plane simulators.

regardless, your understanding of the occulus system is incorrect. the 2.0 will only be rendering a 960x1080 image for each eye. that's only 1million pixels per eye. the high end cards are capable of 6times that with current triple screen setups.

it could actually have the opposite effect on gpu race. if devs know most of their players are rocking ver2.0 1080p rifts and the 2.0 lingers around for 3-4 years, there will be little incentive to jump to 4k.

 

[bystander36]

I don't expect the Oculus Rift to be as popular as the excitement behind it. It still requires you to wear a head set, the #1 complaint about current 3D setups. They still require you to setup the software to look correct as well as the software needs to support it, the #1 reason people think 3D sucks.

I personally have loved 3D Vision, and those who play on a proper game with a properly setup system, love it too, most the time. There is also the issue with Headaches with the current systems and motion sickness which Occulus Rift has shown to cause for at least some users.

I hope it works out, as I love 3D Vision as it is, and this can only make it better, but I have my doubts it will be as successful as many think.

 

[bystander36]

On the topic of arms race for running these systems. You could find the CPU is the most stressed part of the system. Running at 960x1080p per eye, means the GPU may not work much harder at all, but the CPU has to prep for 2 frames instead of 1, and the resolution does not change the work the CPU has to do. From my experience with 3D Vision, this can be a problem with some games, but not others. I believe AI only happens once per both eye, but some physics stuff may need to be done for each eye, putting further stress on the CPU.

The worst example I've seen with the CPU having much higher stress put on it in 3D, is Tomb Raider. The CPU is slammed, while my GPU's are working at 50% in some of the more demanding areas. My minimums may hit 30, instead of the 55 FPS I get in 2D.

 

[Unoid]

We need 120hz panels in Rift, If it's virtual reality, we need smoothness, no blurring

 

[bystander36]

We need 120hz panels in Rift, If it's virtual reality, we need smoothness, no blurring

That would be interesting, though the way it works, it has one 60hz panel for each eye. It doesn't have to switch the image back and forth between two eyes, so it isn't needed to be 120hz. Though the biggest problem they are working on is reducing latency, which a 120hz panel would help some.

 

[BrightCandle]

We need 120hz panels in Rift, If it's virtual reality, we need smoothness, no blurring

John Carmack said the same thing after playing with Valve's in house development version. Valve has a VR headset based on an OLED screen and that can run at much higher refresh rates as well as near zero blur. Before he tried it he didn't think blur was that big of a problem, and that the 60hz wasn't so bad. After trying Valve's implementation he changed his mind on both.

I think in the end VR headsets are going to demand a lot more frames per second and a lot less latency to be truly wonderful.

 

[imaheadcase]

Most unbiased people report current VR tech as at the point where everything has come together.

Oculus Rift seems excellent in extended play even on some games not made for it- minus the resolution and screen effects.

OLED tech means no screen door effects and near perfect clarity especially at 8K which is being run fine with some reducing of image loads using the equivalent of 4 titans. A dual screen setup at 4K would run with no tweaking on 4 titans. Even a standard LCD on Oculus Rift at 1080P is going to require a 780 in detailed games to maintain a 60 FPS and this would be in games made for VR. Getting those annoying FPS drops in VR can equal vomit.

If you see it at a chain try the OLED headset from Sony called the personal 3D viewer. Even at 720P- dual OLED in a headset and eventually glasses is the future.

No, because its a niche market.

 

[HeXen]

Theres no way unless OR by some miracle becomes popular and supports 4k or more resolution or just requires that much more Frame Rates. Part of the reason as to why I don't see OR going much farther with sales than any other VR headset in history and there has been plenty of them. Symptoms of nausea has already been reported several times with it and such reports alone will hesitate many buyers. If higher frames will be necessary for proper enjoyment then that will yet curb the rest since most gamers are console gamers.
Then the software aspect of it. If gamers are limited or require adjustments with software all the time then that would hinder it's popularity further.

 

[Piklar]

You would think tablet retina panels and constant 100- 120hz would be the perfect solution to avoid motion sickness provided the user has the graphic power to maintain fluidity. OR 2.0 does not need to linger too long if the commercial sales are there..

 

[dsc106]

This assumes that Occulus Rift will be the only player. This space is going to explode. OR may be first to market, but once this goes mainstream I would expect to see at least one competitor try to outdo them - perhaps with 1920x1080 per eye, about the pixel equivalent of 4k (except more demanding as the scene is rendered twice).

You also have a new gen of consoles, which support 4k TV.

Will it happen overnight? No, most certainly not.

But as mentioned: if we're in an arms race NOW, to any extent, it is going to accelerate greatly. Because while it is true there is GPU competition today, the market has been stagnant with consoles/resolution.

So, whatever we see now in terms of an 'arms race' I would expect that to accelerate quite a bit over the next couple years, given all the new technology, graphics engines, etc.