Massive amount of horse power, new chip design and some CV1 on-board processing.
DK2 just arrived today. Can I squeeze more out of this? or do i need a new card?
- Thread starter CMDR Holycow
- Start date
If you think they are going to make it 4k, you have no idea how to run a business.
Making this 4k would exclude 99% of users from being capable of using this device at a suitable level of performance. It would lead to tens of thousands of complaints from consumers, bad reviews, and could ruin the brand.
Just like releasing it at the current res. I took me a long time to get used to the low res. Consumers are not going to get used to the low res. given the amount of time it took me to get used to it. They don't want it to be a gimmick used for a few hours. They are looking at specialist areas not just in gaming but in the real world too. With computer power increasing and the DK2 selling well plus they have the backing now.
4k will NOT happen in the CV1.
It would be suicide for the company.
I am not making that number up when I say 99% of people will not be able to run it at 90 fps. Look at the steam hardware survey, it's literally less than 1% of gamers that have the required hardware to tun a 4K rift. When the Titan came out, I scored a 61st place worldwide 3dmark11 score (single GPU).
This GPU is not capable of handling a 4k rift. Neither is a 980.
I don't know why you are claiming they have the backing now with the DK2, when I specifically bought the DK2 for concerns over resolution of the CV1. I am not alone here, anyone who has a clue about today's GPU hardware performance is with me.
Last edited:
As was pointed out in the my previous link, just lower the res. for the non power user, the screen will still have 4k (hopefully less inter-pixel space) just more jagged, and maybe a bit of on-board post AA.
The 970 is a great great card but you are right, it's not going to be enough for a good Rift resolution. I've read one of the Rift devs state that for the resolution to compare to sitting in front of a 1080p screen at normal distance it needs to be 8k.
Ever since I got the Rift I've come to the conclusion that it's very very premature. For it to be even reasonable, visually-speaking, it needs to be MUCH higher resolution. Like I said above, 8k is the goal, which means even 4k is going to be pretty crappy (remember that 4k is one quarter the pixel density of 8k). And to think that even two 980s would almost definitely struggle with a 4k rift (factor in that the rift does way more than double the work of a single screen, and games are getting ever more resource hungry all the time), and only playboys and fat-cats would ever be able to afford it, even next year, I don't know what they are thinking.
I was extremely disappointed until I installed Elite, and at least now I'm having a very decent time with the Rift. The resolution is still a real bummer though.
I wouldn't be surprised if the CV1 gets delayed and delayed while they wait for nvidia to release some much better cards at affordable prices, and for enough people to buy them. I don't see it happening for years, but alas it's going to have to come out sooner or later.
The words of Masta Squidge ring very true:
Now I really can't take you seriously.
Do you have any idea how much power it takes to run AA?
At absolute best, they COULD toss a 4k screen in it, but a 90hz 4k driver, to my knowledge, does not even exist. Most cheap, chinese brand 4k TVs can't even do 60hz, because the display drivers are too expensive.
HDMI is incapable of supporting that bandwidth for starters, and I think even displayport can't get that high. The amount of data going through a 90hz 4k display driver board would require a significant amount of power on its own. Just where do you expect them to put this hardware scaler?
This is what happens when people with no knowledge of how hardware works speculate on things that sound good.
4k at 60hz requires 4 times the bandwidth of 1920x1080. At 90hz it requires 6 times the bandwidth, if my half out of it brain is estimating right.
Last edited:
Oh you don't have to drive a 4k screen at 4k....just larger pixels but less gap hopefully, think I explained that badly. AA on-board the rift (dedicated chip) to smooth things out a little.
You are still mentioning this magical GPU on a chip that can handle AA processing at 90hz.
I for one have no intention of buying a product that requires me to plug a black box into the wall to provide the required amount of electricity to power it.
And they started aiming for a top spec wireless version.
Anyhow off to bed now, we live in hope of a high res versions, been interesting.
I have both on probably not a good idea eh. I am using the DSR 2560 x 1440 and in game SS at 2.
Their official statement is that wireless is not an option any time soon.And they started aiming for a top spec wireless version.
Anyhow off to bed now, we live in hope of a high res versions, been interesting.
You have a great amount of knowledge, and you would have had my deep respect had you not been so rude and arrogant about it.
Im actually ok with that. I'm not looking for respect, as long as it prevents rumors.
So that's making it 2x 2560 x 1440?
I highly doubt it. Surely they are mutually exclusive. It's not actually working is it?
Does one of you guys made quality and speed fps tests to compare:
1/Creating this custom higher resolution manually like suggested here
2/ Use NVidia DSR mode from NV Control Panel
3/ Use SuperSampling directly from the new ingame video choice
I'm curious to get some experience here before trying to do the same with my 970
Ok mate, I've done the comparisons between your 1 and 2 and the results are extremely surprising.
The NVidia DSR mode is worse than the manual downsampling method. SIGNIFICANTLY worse...
I haven't got any benchmarks for you (I wouldn't know how to benchmark the Rift? Almost impossible to keep still and in a fixed positon without a clamp and what good does a fixed position tell you anyway in a game like this?) but I'll tell you what I've noticed.
With manual downsampling I can fly and supercruise in space with everything except shadows on full without any drops in frames at all. Can fly right up to a planet and apart from the fixed temporary judder, once that's over it's smooth sailing all round.
With Nvidia DSR I can only maintain smooth frames in normal flight mode with settings on high/ultra. In supercruise I get constant drops, especially when I look down at my feet. If I'm close to a planet or star then no matter where I look it will judder. Even if I turn every setting to it's lowest.
I don't know why this should be, it doesn't make sense because in theory Nvidia DSR is more optimised and uses a dedicated filter (whatever that means) that supposedly gives you a performance boost. Maybe it's the gaussian blur effect that's the culprit (the dedicated filter?). I'll experiment turning that off to see.
Anyway, what about the quality comparison? Well each has it's advantages. In terms of aliasing reduction, the Nvidia DSR just looks (a little bit) better thanks to that gaussian blur filter. It's not much but it's noticable. The lines and edges are just that much less shimmery. Text in the cockpit becomes easy as pie to read. But weirdly, with manual downsampling, the whole ambience of the scene feels better. It's got richer colours, and a more solid feel...can't explain it, I'm not an artist.
Anyway, it's probably happening like this because I've done something wrong, but I hope this helps
Are you maxed out? I get too much stutter doing that even with a 980 SLI.
Ok my final thought about Nvidia DSR and manual downsampling. The reason the Nvidia one was more sluggish was simply due to the gaussian blur. Turning that off purifies the frame rate. But it looks disgusting. I am tempted to experiment with it because 33% is gorgeous, but slow. But for now I'm just sticking with manual because it's simpler.
One thing they could do to really optimise the rift is to allow to have separate shadow options for the cockpit and the rest of the environment. I've noticed that environment shadows make little to no impact on the frame rate, whereas cockpit shadows are very drastic. I'd be very happy to have 0 shadows in the cockpit but still see the shadow of a spinning radar dish against a tower on some space platform adrift in space.
One thing they could do to really optimise the rift is to allow to have separate shadow options for the cockpit and the rest of the environment. I've noticed that environment shadows make little to no impact on the frame rate, whereas cockpit shadows are very drastic. I'd be very happy to have 0 shadows in the cockpit but still see the shadow of a spinning radar dish against a tower on some space platform adrift in space.
I am running both on my gtx 980 single I do get some shudder in jumps but otherwise runs pretty good. I do not measure my FPS but have aero on and lowered my main monitor to get it to 75FPS and seems to work pretty well. I need to do some experimenting this weekend using one or the other instead of both I will say is I go to 3 SS in game my mouse starts lagging and everything becomes non usable but at 2 it seems to work pretty well
Last edited:
Are you sure you're not making a mistake?
Can we have your machine specs and brands please?