VR and Video Cards--

[giantpandaman2]

Mostly I'm curious to know what those who have, tried, or looked at prototypes of VR glasses think that we'll need to have low motion sickness.

120 fps @ 1080p?
90 fps @ 2560x1600?
90 fps @ 4k?

When, in your estimations would single card systems be able to handle the framerates needed for non-sickening VR? I'm excited to get into VR, but I'm very sensitive to motion sickness caused by pixel lag. I'll probably wait until affordable single card solutions.

 

[antihelten]

motion sickness is not so much a question of resolution or refresh rate (although refresh rate also has something to say), but mainly a question of latency.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

But low latency requires a high framerate, though the opposite often doesn't fly.

 

[Headfoot]

My guess is at reduced settings -- today. Full settings, single card, with AA? Probably when 16/14nm GPUs hit

 

[giantpandaman2]

But low latency requires a high framerate, though the opposite often doesn't fly.

Yeah, I'm afraid that 60fps (30fps each eye) from the video card will make me very sick. I'm wondering if there will be demo stations at any stores so I can try it out. I live near Valve so hopefully they'll put something up in a mall or electronics store.

Looks like the developer Vive runs at 2400x1080 @ 90 fps (45 each eye). Anyone tried running it on a single card? I'm guessing it's sli/cf required at this point.

 

[Headfoot]

It depends on the load. You can't just make a blanket statement like that. Some games will likely run 2400x1080 @ 90 fps -- Half Life 2 for example. Others might run that fast at low on 290/290x/970/980/Titan X. Others might only run that fast on a Titan X. Others might only run that fast on Titan X SLI. It depends on the game bro

 

[giantpandaman2]

It depends on the load. You can't just make a blanket statement like that. Some games will likely run 2400x1080 @ 90 fps -- Half Life 2 for example. Others might run that fast at low on 290/290x/970/980/Titan X. Others might only run that fast on a Titan X. Others might only run that fast on Titan X SLI. It depends on the game bro

Of course it does, but I'm specifically thinking new games. After all, those are going to be the ones designed for VR in the first place.

 

[zlatan]

Mostly I'm curious to know what those who have, tried, or looked at prototypes of VR glasses think that we'll need to have low motion sickness.

120 fps @ 1080p?
90 fps @ 2560x1600?
90 fps @ 4k?

When, in your estimations would single card systems be able to handle the framerates needed for non-sickening VR? I'm excited to get into VR, but I'm very sensitive to motion sickness caused by pixel lag. I'll probably wait until affordable single card solutions.

I had some experience with VR recently. Basically motion sickness is a complex problem, and it needs mutiply solutions to achive good results. A simple solution is a virtual nose. I'm not joking. This will be probably an option in every VR game. If you are sensitive to motion sickness, than I really recommend to turn it on.
A fast hardware is not enough. VR is radically different than normal rendering. Async timewarp will be a critical feature to minimize latency. Implementing this is very problematic, because it is not standardized yet. There is a VR Direct SDK for Geforce and a LiquidVR SDK for Radeon. These solutions based on specific APIs.
NV works with NVAPI using draw-level preemption. This is not a good solution because it can only switch at draw call boundaries, so a long draw will delay context switch. In this case there is a huge chance that the hardware will late the sync window.
AMD works with Mantle API using ACEs with OOO logic. This is a better solution because the GCN is stateless for compute, but the preemption is still not good enough.
For the best experience you need finer-grained preemption, but only Tonga support it. There will be a new Radeon this quarter, which has the same ASIC as Tonga, and it has way more performance. It will be the very first really VR-ready hardware. If you want to further reduce latency you should use two GPUs. These can be on a single PCB, it doesn't matter.
The last important thing is the GPU head tracking. This is also a critical feature, but it's not standardized, or even worse it is only possible on Mantle API with LiquidVR.

Sorry to say this but VR on PC is not a excellent experience on most GPUs. If you still want it you should go for a Fiji GPU (or two) with LiquidVR.

 

[bystander36]

You may be confused on the FPS these systems support. Typically 3D FPS are given at what each eye generates by themselves. So 3D Vision at 60 FPS is generating 120 images per second, 60 to each eye. HD3D uses the same method of specifying FPS.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

I actually own a DK2. A lot of demos run perfectly fine at locked 75 FPS. Alien Isolation runs beautifully in Oculus mode once you disable the ambient occlusion because if that's left on it judders like crazy for some reason, despite the high framerate. Elite Dangerous also runs well, and fits well because you can't really see the pixels in the blackness of space, so it looks amazing.

Project CARS also runs fairly well provided you don't add something like 30 AI to the track to tank your precious framerate in Rift mode.

 

[DiogoDX]

Yeah, I'm afraid that 60fps (30fps each eye) from the video card will make me very sick. I'm wondering if there will be demo stations at any stores so I can try it out. I live near Valve so hopefully they'll put something up in a mall or electronics store.

Looks like the developer Vive runs at 2400x1080 @ 90 fps (45 each eye). Anyone tried running it on a single card? I'm guessing it's sli/cf required at this point.

No.

It is 2 1200X1080 screens runing at 90hz (total of 2400X1080). VR 3D stereo isn't like 3D vision. Even Oculus Dk2 that is one 1080P screen have only half the screen showed for each eye.

 

[giantpandaman2]

No.

It is 2 1200X1080 screens runing at 90hz (total of 2400X1080). VR 3D stereo isn't like 3D vision. Even Oculus Dk2 that is one 1080P screen have only half the screen showed for each eye.

Whoops, you're right. So 2400x1080 at 90fps is the ideal setting for the Vive. The question is whether that's what the consumer version will run.