[VentureBeat] To handle VR graphics, PCs have to be 7X more powerful

[Mondozei]

Interesting interview on Nvidia's perspective on VR. One bit of information I found useful when thinking about these issues:

By next year, when the first major PC-based VR headsets ship, there will be about 13 million PCs in the market that will be powerful enough to run VR — in the right way.

There are well over 100 million PC gamers in the world, so the installed base with a GPU of a 290 or a 970 is not very large. (Yes, he goes on to state that thanks to the magical powers of Gameworks VR, the number can go from 13 to 25 million, but that's unproven marketing hype for now).

If sales estimates around 4-5 million VR headsets per year will materialise, then you must see a huge upgrade drive among PC gamers for this to have legroom to grow for more than just a few years, even counting new enthusiast buyers.

 

[railven]

Do they mean the average PC has to be 7x stronger? Sort of a contradiction if they flat out say there are some PC's that will be capable of handling VR, but PC's have to be 7X stronger.

 

[gorobei]

its a meaningless fluff piece. nothing new that wasnt reported 9 months ago.

the only distinguishing thing nv has is the slightly more advanced pre-distortion lens compensation. everything else they are touting everyone else already has.

tested had an interview with oculus' game dev relations coordinator a few weeks back, that was way deeper and actually had real details.

the performance numbers are as railven said, contradictory. most of the estimates i see being tossed around are 10M+ hmd units shipped. with gearVR composing the lion's share. next runner-up being PSVR. those two will comprise the bulk of the general public's experience with vr. neither of which uses nv. if they were smart they would start bulking up tegra with an active cooling system, as the first one to market with a truly wireless/tetherless experience will likely win over the non-techie crowd. half measures like using cellphones in a gearVR or google box will always have weight and power issues. something belt mounted with a decent battery will be far more persuasive.

TH article on average person's response to vr.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/sharing-vr-with-family-christmas,30825.html

 

[tviceman]

Nvidia had a method of VR rendering that reduced peripheral resolution on the fly to improve performance without a perceived loss in visual quality (since the user is unable to focus on their peripheral vision). No idea if this is how gsmeworks VR improves performance or not.

 

[arandomguy]

Do they mean the average PC has to be 7x stronger? Sort of a contradiction if they flat out say there are some PC's that will be capable of handling VR, but PC's have to be 7X stronger.

It's in the article. It's based upon what they consider is the increased resolution and fps required relative to 1080p30fps. Although the number doesn't quite match up exactly.

 

[railven]

It's in the article. It's based upon what they consider is the increased resolution and fps required relative to 1080p30fps. Although the number doesn't quite match up exactly.

<SNIP>

Yeah, but even using that, my question is left - is that claim for the average PC? Because I would argue the average PC is still struggling to do 1080p @ 30 FPS when you factor in a good chunk of "Gaming PCs" are using <$100 GPUs if not iGPUs.

My comment was more so they openly said there is about 13 million PCs that can do VR right, so that tells me computers are already powerful enough to play VR right, however, the average PC is most definitely not.

 

[moonbogg]

No one seems concerned with the much larger issue of having to wear a stupid helmet. I remember how excited I was when I got my 3D Vision 2 monitor from Asus. It had the best 3D experience for PC gaming. The glasses were new and very light and comfortable. Light boost eliminated the issue of a darkened image. Everything was great, and with a fast rig you could get decent framerate. All boxes were checked in my case.
I watched a movie in 3D, messed around with a couple games and never used it again. As I gamed in 3D I realized that I could have a similar 2D experience without having to wear those damn glasses, so I took the glasses off after a few minutes every time. I prefer to use my computer with my head free from the garbage these companies continually try to attach to it.

 

[HeXen]

Yeah, but even using that, my question is left - is that claim for the average PC? Because I would argue the average PC is still struggling to do 1080p @ 30 FPS when you factor in a good chunk of "Gaming PCs" are using <$100 GPUs if not iGPUs.

My comment was more so they openly said there is about 13 million PCs that can do VR right, so that tells me computers are already powerful enough to play VR right, however, the average PC is most definitely not.

But does the average PC have a user that would not purchase the Sony PS4 VR instead or even purchase such at all?. There's no real polls to indicate how many actual VR wanting consumers out there that will be willing to or need to upgrade first nor how many potential buyers will opt out because their PC is outdated.

Because it takes a special breed of gamer to allocate their financial resources to a high end PC let alone a VR. Most of my gaming friends use consoles and have no clue about VR's existence and after I explained the Rift, Vive..etc they didn't seem to have any interest.

 

[DigDog]

by the time we have 7x the computing power of today, we will have full ray tracing, said he, hoping to ever see RT become a reality.

read it in the voice of ron swanson

 

[frozentundra123456]

No one seems concerned with the much larger issue of having to wear a stupid helmet. I remember how excited I was when I got my 3D Vision 2 monitor from Asus. It had the best 3D experience for PC gaming. The glasses were new and very light and comfortable. Light boost eliminated the issue of a darkened image. Everything was great, and with a fast rig you could get decent framerate. All boxes were checked in my case.
I watched a movie in 3D, messed around with a couple games and never used it again. As I gamed in 3D I realized that I could have a similar 2D experience without having to wear those damn glasses, so I took the glasses off after a few minutes every time. I prefer to use my computer with my head free from the garbage these companies continually try to attach to it.

Yea, the ease of use seems critical to me. Reminds me of the 3D tv sets that were supposed to be the next big thing. I dont really know why they pretty much died out, but I have a feeling that a big part of it was having to wear the glasses. Personally, I am not interested in VR, and am not sure how it will catch on. If you can do it on the consoles without a lot of added expense, that would be a big step in the right direction.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No one seems concerned with the much larger issue of having to wear a stupid helmet. I remember how excited I was when I got my 3D Vision 2 monitor from Asus. It had the best 3D experience for PC gaming. The glasses were new and very light and comfortable. Light boost eliminated the issue of a darkened image. Everything was great, and with a fast rig you could get decent framerate. All boxes were checked in my case.
I watched a movie in 3D, messed around with a couple games and never used it again. As I gamed in 3D I realized that I could have a similar 2D experience without having to wear those damn glasses, so I took the glasses off after a few minutes every time. I prefer to use my computer with my head free from the garbage these companies continually try to attach to it.

Agreed, I think VR is exciting but I can't get over the fact that you'll need essentially an enclosed helmet to use it. Far too isolating in my opinion especially if you have a wife or children its simply odd to remove yourself so much.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Gameworks? Magical?

Do you actually believe anything that company says?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Wirth's Law laughs at your 7x faster PCs.

 

[JeffMD]

Agreed, I think VR is exciting but I can't get over the fact that you'll need essentially an enclosed helmet to use it. Far too isolating in my opinion especially if you have a wife or children its simply odd to remove yourself so much.

That sounds like a personal issue, and will not effect the desire for the device much. Most would consider it a selling point.

Trying to associate this with 3d glasses is a huge error. VR helmets step beyond simply 3d images, and with full head tracking it fools the brain into thinking that you have stepped into a "different" realm, one that doesn't actually exist. Simply youtube the reaction videos. It works.

I will def be one of the first in line when the OR is released.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's in the article. It's based upon what they consider is the increased resolution and fps required relative to 1080p30fps.

30fps? Are they using consoles as the example?

 

[DownTheSky]

That resolution is less than 4k. And since we can do 4k@ 30fps with hardware we have today, I'd say 2-3x more powerful would be closer to truth.

 

[JeffMD]

I "believe" the 7x is based on the power of home computers used for gaming averaged out across the board. For as many 780+ gamers out there, there are twice as many farting around with 640'ish budget builds (Sorry, I do not know ati's numbers).

So... asking for gta5 to be 30fps at 1080p on an average build would be pretty nice. IMO it is probably not a valid target. You should not be asking "can my system do VR", you should be asking "What do I need to build a VR system".