CPU load in VR?

[Dielos]

Unless we're all using the same primary graphics settings (ss: 0.65, hmd-q: 2.0, AA: off, draw distance: max) and monitoring tools (HWiNFO64), I can't see how we can compare CPU loads.

If we could all agree to install HWiNFO64 and use the initial settings stated in my OP and make a station to station flight, then we could actually compare notes.

Anywho, as my average loads show around 60% I guess all is well. Those spikes do worry me though.

I just installed HWiNFO64, although I might not be able to test in VR until the weekend or even next week, as I have a conference to attend. Will report sooner if I manage.

By the way, which values do I need to look for in HWiNFO64? There are tons of numbers here...

 

[Globusdiablo]

I just installed HWiNFO64, although I might not be able to test in VR until the weekend or even next week, as I have a conference to attend. Will report sooner if I manage.

By the way, which values do I need to look for in HWiNFO64? There are tons of numbers here...

Check the ones I highlighted in my other posts.

 

[Dielos]

Check the ones I highlighted in my other posts.

Thanks! Adapted the view to show all the needed values. Will post a screenshot when I get the chance to test.

 

[Dielos]

Well, managed to do a fast test docked at a station's surface looking towards the exit.

My PC:
i7-6850K 16gb Ram (16 more lying around uninstalled)
GTX 970
Oculus Rift

EDProfiler Settings:

Spoiler

These are the results:

Spoiler

That 65.5% was hit before I even started ED. Don't think it got that high while in-game, was mostly around 25-40 unless I missed some spike (might be reading wrong values?). What bothers me is that FPS was fluctuating between 44-45, which should be too low, but I was having a perfectly smooth experience. Launched as well and no probs skimming close to the station walls nor near other ships. I guess that ATW thing kicked in, but it sure works wonders...

Now to see if I can even get more image clarity somehow!


[EDIT]: Found out what gave me the spike before starting ED. Firefox sure eats resources... Will make my next test when I can with Firefox shut down.

 

[Ashnak]

Ok, whenever I come across this thread, I'm not at my game PC, and whenever I'm at my game PC, I forget about this thread, so take these numbers with a pinch of salt - from watching FPS display and task manager out of the nose gap occasionally:

primary display on 1200x800 or something like that
VR:
SMAA
SS to 1.0
AO, Blur, Bloom off
HMD to 1.5

CPU i5/4690k @ 4.2 GHz
GPU MSI GTX 1080 x 8G

Inside hangar: usually ~60% on CPU, display throttling to 45 FPS
Outside orbis station: CPU peaking >90%, display throttling to 45 FPS
regular flight, planetary approach: CPU around 60%, 90 FPS
inside RES: display switching between 90 FPS and 45 FPS, no idea about CPU (I was kinda occupied...)

Turning SMAA off doesn't make a perceptive difference in FPS. If I want to get 90 FPS solid across the board, I have to turn down IQ too much.

 

[Globusdiablo]

Well, managed to do a fast test docked at a station's surface looking towards the exit.

My PC:
i7-6850K 16gb Ram (16 more lying around uninstalled)
GTX 970
Oculus Rift

EDProfiler Settings:

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/wTjwW1B.png

These are the results:

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/LPvb7jZ.png

That 65.5% was hit before I even started ED. Don't think it got that high while in-game, was mostly around 25-40 unless I missed some spike (might be reading wrong values?). What bothers me is that FPS was fluctuating between 44-45, which should be too low, but I was having a perfectly smooth experience. Launched as well and no probs skimming close to the station walls nor near other ships. I guess that ATW thing kicked in, but it sure works wonders...

Now to see if I can even get more image clarity somehow!


[EDIT]: Found out what gave me the spike before starting ED. Firefox sure eats resources... Will make my next test when I can with Firefox shut down.

By the look of it you have plenty of room for CPU OC. Voltage is low, and max temps are very low. You should be able to OC to 4.4-4.6 with no problem.

Edit: Not that you need OC. You seem to have plenty of room on your max CPU load.

2. Edit: So CPU isn't your problem. Your GPU is your bottleneck.

 

[Dielos]

By the look of it you have plenty of room for CPU OC. Voltage is low, and max temps are very low. You should be able to OC to 4.4-4.6 with no problem.

Edit: Not that you need OC. You seem to have plenty of room on your max CPU load.

2. Edit: So CPU isn't your problem. Your GPU is your bottleneck.

Thanks for the info. Good to know I have room for improvement if I ever need it, although no idea how to OC. Doesn't really look like I need it now anyway as you say. What I don't understand is why my CPU is running much better than others here that are superior. I understand that an i7-7700K at 4.2 as seen in another post should be superior to my i7-6850K at 3.8?

Anyway, you're totally right with my GPU being the bottleneck. Guess I'll have to upgrade it! But I just dipped my toe in VR recently. I own the Rift since last week, so still playing with the settings. My goal is to see how much image clarity I can achieve for now, and if the GTX 970 can hold a bit longer, I want to see where the newer cards head before upgrading, as I want to be prepared mostly for when 2nd generation head sets come. HMD Quality seems to be the most differentiating factor in image quality, so I want to see if I can increase that further somehow and see results then, maybe through the Oculus debug tool.

Thanks again, I will give you more rep as soon as I'm able to spread some more again...

 

[Globusdiablo]

Thanks for the info. Good to know I have room for improvement if I ever need it, although no idea how to OC. Doesn't really look like I need it now anyway as you say. What I don't understand is why my CPU is running much better than others here that are superior. I understand that an i7-7700K at 4.2 as seen in another post should be superior to my i7-6850K at 3.8?

Anyway, you're totally right with my GPU being the bottleneck. Guess I'll have to upgrade it! But I just dipped my toe in VR recently. I own the Rift since last week, so still playing with the settings. My goal is to see how much image clarity I can achieve for now, and if the GTX 970 can hold a bit longer, I want to see where the newer cards head before upgrading, as I want to be prepared mostly for when 2nd generation head sets come. HMD Quality seems to be the most differentiating factor in image quality, so I want to see if I can increase that further somehow and see results then, maybe through the Oculus debug tool.

Thanks again, I will give you more rep as soon as I'm able to spread some more again...

No worries Commander. OC is best done through your bios. If you have a decent motherboard, it should have options for this.

Your CPU seems to be running very cool under load which is excellent. Others could have issues with thermal throttling if their CPU doesn't get enough ventilation.

I don't think you can bump hmd-q further than 2 (not yet anyway). So best way to increase visual fidelity would be to up the in-game ss. But as we now know, it's your GPU that's limiting further improvement if you still want solid fps.

I haven't heard anything on Vive or Oculus 2.0. What I have heard is that Vive would like to run with 1.0 for a year or two which makes sense seeing as todays gpu's can't keep up anyway. There are other developers making noise of course, but I plan on keeping my Vive for at least another year (and next gen Nvidia).

Edit: I just noticed that you have ambient occlusion turned off. This might also be a big plus for your CPU, though I don't know.

 

[Dielos]

Thanks a lot Globusdiablo! On the HMD setting, it might be possible to push it further having the in-game setting at 2.0 and then using the debug tool to push it a bit further. Will test it in any case. If it shows further improvement, even if my GPU can't handle it correctly, it will sure push me to upgrade that GPU faster!

I've had a strange first week with the Rift. The first tests without knowing all the tweaks was so bad that it gave me nausea, plus I couldn't discern a Sidewinder from a space station. Abandoned the Rift altogether and decided to test two days ago with American Truck Simulator, and boy was that impressive from the get go! Decided to make a further attempt with Elite and really impressed now, but resolution and clarity seem to be my biggest differentiating factors for me, both in immersion as in nausea.

Another thing I'd like to have clear is what the ideal resolution for each HMD quality setting is. I understand that upscaling from a native resolution is less taxating than from a non-native. So, at 2.0 should I change the resolution to something else? Any easy way to calculate this? I have it set as of now in EDProfiler at 1920 x 1080...

 

[Globusdiablo]

Thanks a lot Globusdiablo! On the HMD setting, it might be possible to push it further having the in-game setting at 2.0 and then using the debug tool to push it a bit further. Will test it in any case. If it shows further improvement, even if my GPU can't handle it correctly, it will sure push me to upgrade that GPU faster!

I've had a strange first week with the Rift. The first tests without knowing all the tweaks was so bad that it gave me nausea, plus I couldn't discern a Sidewinder from a space station. Abandoned the Rift altogether and decided to test two days ago with American Truck Simulator, and boy was that impressive from the get go! Decided to make a further attempt with Elite and really impressed now, but resolution and clarity seem to be my biggest differentiating factors for me, both in immersion as in nausea.

Another thing I'd like to have clear is what the ideal resolution for each HMD quality setting is. I understand that upscaling from a native resolution is less taxating than from a non-native. So, at 2.0 should I change the resolution to something else? Any easy way to calculate this? I have it set as of now in EDProfiler at 1920 x 1080...

The HMDs have fixed resolution. You can't change them.

Nausea I would presume is down to bad fps. Use ctrl +f, and tip your hmd to check your fps on your 2D monitor. But as you know a 970 is minimum spec, so you will be struggling with that gpu.

 

[Dielos]

I'm asking about the resolution based on info found on this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/335485-Does-it-matter-to-my-headset-what-resolution-I-set-in-graphics-options?highlight=resolution

It's more about the load for upscaling rather than the HMD resolution in itself, sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Globusdiablo]

I'm asking about the resolution based on info found on this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/335485-Does-it-matter-to-my-headset-what-resolution-I-set-in-graphics-options?highlight=resolution

It's more about the load for upscaling rather than the HMD resolution in itself, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Yeah, I read that thread. I'm not savvy about the inner workings of rendering, but from what I understand there isn't much if anything to gain by changing native resolution on your monitor.

Based on your hardware and your CPU loads I don't think there is much more for you to gain. Unless you can OC your GPU, and even if you could, I would recommend buying a better GPU. Your settings in ED profiler suggest that the only way forward (increasing ss and maybe adding ambient occlusion) requires a stronger GPU. Depending on your funds, a 1070 should give a decent bump. Although I'm running a 1080 and still can't push ss past .65 if I want solid fps with hmd-q set to 2.0. And solid fps is key to a decent VR experience.

 

[Dielos]

Yeah, I read that thread. I'm not savvy about the inner workings of rendering, but from what I understand there isn't much if anything to gain by changing native resolution on your monitor.

Based on your hardware and your CPU loads I don't think there is much more for you to gain. Unless you can OC your GPU, and even if you could, I would recommend buying a better GPU. Your settings in ED profiler suggest that the only way forward (increasing ss and maybe adding ambient occlusion) requires a stronger GPU. Depending on your funds, a 1070 should give a decent bump. Although I'm running a 1080 and still can't push ss past .65 if I want solid fps with hmd-q set to 2.0. And solid fps is key to a decent VR experience.

Thanks again. Budget is not a problem, so probably the 1080ti will be the one, once I figure out the different options.

I'd be interested to know as well if you find out what's causing the CPU hog for most! So hopefully this study keeps moving forward...

 

[buyback]

i got:

Oculus Rift ASW disabled
I5-5675C for exoticness OCed to 4.1 Ghz
R9-290 OCed to 1048 Core / 1350 Mem
Was on Millerport (Quince) facing exit from the pad - Its the palm tree type station.
I tried 0.65/2.0 (about 56 FPS only) so GPU is blocking
and 0.65/1.75 (about 75 FPS) So GPU still blocking (screenshot from here)
and 0.65/1.5 (90 FPS stable) GPU at 90% load

Average CPU load for all those settings are the same as in the screenshot below for 0.65/1.75 - at 50% avg
http://imgur.com/J5vQ8od

 

[Globusdiablo]

...I'd be interested to know as well if you find out what's causing the CPU hog for most! So hopefully this study keeps moving forward...

From what I conclude, Elite: Dangerous VR is (obviously) very taxing on most PCs, especially if you want to "max" settings. Average loads on most decent CPUs are fine apart from the odd spikes. You have plenty of head room on your i7 so that is not your problem going forward, whereas I need to OC my i5 to get a little head room for spikes.

If money isn't an issue I would definitely grab a 1080ti (not founders edition. I'd wait for reviews on Asus or MSI). The sweet spot for me would be SS at 1 and HMD-Q at 2. I'm not sure if a 1080ti could actually pull it off though (with FPS around 90).

At 4.6 Ghz I have the headroom I need on my i5, so I'll start saving for next gen GPU instead.

i got:

Oculus Rift ASW disabled
I5-5675C for exoticness OCed to 4.1 Ghz
R9-290 OCed to 1048 Core / 1350 Mem
Was on Millerport (Quince) facing exit from the pad - Its the palm tree type station.
I tried 0.65/2.0 (about 56 FPS only) so GPU is blocking
and 0.65/1.75 (about 75 FPS) So GPU still blocking (screenshot from here)
and 0.65/1.5 (90 FPS stable) GPU at 90% load

Average CPU load for all those settings are the same as in the screenshot below for 0.65/1.75 - at 50% avg
http://imgur.com/J5vQ8od

Yeah, your CPU is taking a bath also. No loads or temps to worry about. So you know what you need to do next.

 

[buyback]

Yeah, your CPU is taking a bath also. No loads or temps to worry about. So you know what you need to do next.

Sick of AMD here really after months waiting to get proper ASW support for R9 200 line while NV has it for previous generations since October...
Im currently looking into buy-in either a 1080 Ti FE next 2 weeks when some prices drop, ripping off the cooler and adding an alphccool AIO or maybe waiting a lil longer for the cheapest 2x8pin 1080TI thats available end April.

 

[Globusdiablo]

... Im currently looking into buy-in either a 1080 Ti FE next 2 weeks when some prices drop, ripping off the cooler and adding an alphccool AIO or maybe waiting a lil longer for the cheapest 2x8pin 1080TI thats available end April.

Sounds like a good plan.

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

I'm asking about the resolution based on info found on this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/335485-Does-it-matter-to-my-headset-what-resolution-I-set-in-graphics-options?highlight=resolution

It's more about the load for upscaling rather than the HMD resolution in itself, sorry if I wasn't clear.

Load for upscaling or downscaling is literally almost nothing. GPU's do this all the time for texture operations etc so they do it super-fast. The image in the frame buffer is just the same.

In theory, setting it to 1280x1200 would not need scaling at all... if you need that <0.1ms

- - - Updated - - -

The sweet spot for me would be SS at 1 and HMD-Q at 2. I'm not sure if a 1080ti could actually pull it off though (with FPS around 90).

It would seem 1080Ti is capable of Ultra settings with SS 1.0x and HMDQ 1.5x or some setting dropped slightly and HMDQ of 1.75x. Minor image quality increase from 1.5.

Still judders in all the normal places as its still not immune to loading delays.

 

[Globusdiablo]

...It would seem 1080Ti is capable of Ultra settings with SS 1.0x and HMDQ 1.5x or some setting dropped slightly and HMDQ of 1.75x. Minor image quality increase from 1.5.

Still judders in all the normal places as its still not immune to loading delays.

Yeah, I thought as much. I'll wait for next gen Nvidia.

On a "positive" CPU note; this thread has taught me that Elite: Dangerous actually utilises all cores on an i7. So instead of running my i5 6600K under stress, I'll be going with a laid back i7 next time.

 

[TorTorden_VR]

From what I conclude, Elite: Dangerous VR is (obviously) very taxing on most PCs, especially if you want to "max" settings. Average loads on most decent CPUs are fine apart from the odd spikes. You have plenty of head room on your i7 so that is not your problem going forward, whereas I need to OC my i5 to get a little head room for spikes.

If money isn't an issue I would definitely grab a 1080ti (not founders edition. I'd wait for reviews on Asus or MSI). The sweet spot for me would be SS at 1 and HMD-Q at 2. I'm not sure if a 1080ti could actually pull it off though (with FPS around 90).

At 4.6 Ghz I have the headroom I need on my i5, so I'll start saving for next gen GPU instead.




Yeah, your CPU is taking a bath also. No loads or temps to worry about. So you know what you need to do next.

The Asus strix ROG 1080ti has been reviewed by techpowerup already.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1080_Ti_Strix_OC/

Not a lot different from the FE in performance, but quieter, cooler.
The extra hdmi, the case fan plugs etc make me think the different is worth it.

Although the price they went with in the review was a little optimistic.