Hardware & Technical "another 1080ti VR thread": objective opinion required

[StiTch]

Hi folks!

CMDR StiTch! is thinking of bumping his rig up to cope with the demands of VR. At present, CMDR StiTch! is using a 980ti, and gets a reasonable VR experience at a reasonable quality level, with dips in performance when in high-intensity areas such as stations/asteroid fields/planets.

I've heard multiple people rave about the power the 1080ti has, with the ability to push most settings and quality sliders to ultra/top level.

However...a bud of mine bought a 1080ti for his smaller rig alongside new PSU that would actually support it, and while I noticed an improvement, it's not substantially better than what I get myself. Maybe a few pounds worth of difference; not several hundred pounds. Settings were at high with Ultra in places, 3D quality not maxed out, SS set relatively low. And yet still a bit of noticeable rubberbanding on station entry etc.

On the other hand his rig was not really designed for this level of performance. Reasonable parts, but the smallest case I've seen a full ATX rig fit in, and a distinct lack of correct cooling.

So can I please ask for an objective opinion on the 1080ti? From someone that's out the excitement/honeymoon period - is it actually likely to be worth its cost, especially over a reasonable current experience?

Cheers in advance, peoples.

 

[shadragon]

To be honest, if you are happy with the 980Ti, stick with it. The 1080ti is a good card and I'm not knocking it. It will perform better then your 980Ti, but you'll see little improvement overall in VR.

I had a MSI 980Ti and went to a Titan X-P. While I have better performance with the Titan, what I see on the HMD is quite close to the 980ti. Performance in VR is essentially logarithmic in nature. Simply put, to get 2x performance you need 4x the card horsepower. The Titan X is 64% better than a 980Ti according to some sites. Yet, that let me go from 1.5 to 2.0 in SS settings and slight tweaks to AA and that's about it.

The 1080ti is comparable to the Titan X-P and if you get one, you won't be disappointed, but it really isn't necessary if you have a decent machine and a 980Ti.

Edit: What I would love to see is NVIDIA and Vive coming up with an SLI arrangement where you can have two 1080Ti's, one for the left eye and one for the right. That would rock and should give you 90FPS pretty much everywhere assuming your CPU can keep up.

 

[StiTch]

To be honest, if you are happy with the 980Ti, stick with it. The 1080ti is a good card and I'm not knocking it. It will perform better then your 980Ti, but you'll see little improvement overall in VR.

I had a MSI 980Ti and went to a Titan X-P. While I have better performance with the Titan, what I see on the HMD is quite close to the 980ti. Performance in VR is essentially logarithmic in nature. Simply put, to get 2x performance you need 4x the card horsepower. The Titan X is 64% better than a 980Ti according to some sites. Yet, that let me go from 1.5 to 2.0 in SS settings and slight tweaks to AA and that's about it.

The 1080ti is comparable to the Titan X-P and if you get one, you won't be disappointed, but it really isn't necessary if you have a decent machine and a 980Ti.

Cheers, rep given for some spot-on information, and fairly consistent with what I saw in my mate's card. Improvement yes...total smoothness on max settings? Absolutely not.

 

[shadragon]

Cheers, rep given for some spot-on information, and fairly consistent with what I saw in my mate's card. Improvement yes...total smoothness on max settings? Absolutely not.

There is no single card on the market today that can deliver 90 fps on my Vive, or I'd own one.

In time there will be, but then they'll move onto 4K per eye or better and drive the graphics card manufacturers specs even higher.

 

[Nagual]

I can't compare my 1080Ti to anything I've had previously, as I only got the card to go with my Vive on the same day. However What I can say is that after realising my frame rate issues were CPU related (dust in the fins and not cooling correctly, thus it was getting throttled. A .Lot.) My settings are currently Supersampling at 5. Rendertargetmultiplier at 2.5. In game settings at max, except blur, DoF, and bloom (don't like those so they are off) Can't say anything for asteroids yet ( on my way to a ring now) but I have not noticed any frame drops in game.

 

[StiTch]

In time there will be, but then they'll move onto 4K per eye or better and drive the graphics card manufacturers specs even higher.

Ah consumerism, how you doth take us for fools...

But yeah, it would be awesome to see some supported SLI, especially in specific context with VR. Expectant, though...I am not.

I can't compare my 1080Ti to anything I've had previously, as I only got the card to go with my Vive on the same day. However What I can say is that after realising my frame rate issues were CPU related (dust in the fins and not cooling correctly, thus it was getting throttled. A .Lot.)

I've actually got a strong build and have been ousted only by the "techno power creep" Shadragon mentions. Good cooling/layout, water cooled hex core i7 w/ hyperthreading, SSD for OS and game installations, blah blah "I love my rig". My CPU or rest of system certainly isn't the bottleneck - I don't think my CPU even registers ED running sometimes.

The demands of VR are intense, though. I bought my 980ti discounted not that long before the 10 series was announced, and was impressed by its power - but holy crap VR can put some strain even on a good system.

 

[FoxTwo]

Sorry to interrupt, I don't own a VR, so I am actually interested in the question of WHY do you need 90 fps "per eye"? Would 60 fps each eye not be sufficient?

Not a troll, not to criticise, genuinely interested.

 

[Frank]

Moving pictures don't look like a series of still photographs shown to you in rapid succession. At around 25 frames per second the pictures kind of melt together to give you the illusion of movement.

The same sort of thing happens with virtual reality. It doesn't feel like a head tracker with a couple of monitors strapped to your eyes. At around 75 to 100 fps the headset starts to feel like the illusion of reality.

 

[FoxTwo]

... so, at 60 fps each eye, the scene would not look "real" enough in a VR set?

wow.

 

[Necronaught]

From what I hear the Ryzen chips coupled with a 1080ti are more suited for VR. They have less max frames per second but maintain a more consistent frame rate. The drops are a lot less, to unnoticeable. So if you have an INTEL chip you may want to consider AMD.

 

[StiTch]

... so, at 60 fps each eye, the scene would not look "real" enough in a VR set?

wow.

Part of the issue is that the game doesn't really just get to pick the FPS it runs at...it is kind of locked to two areas of values. So either you are working efficiently enough to manage around 90FPS, or you're running around/below 45 FPS.

The beauties of ASW...

So if you have an INTEL chip you may want to consider AMD.

You couldn't get me to consider AMD CPUs if you put a spiked bargepole to my head Cheers for the info, though.

 

[FoxTwo]

Part of the issue is that the game doesn't really just get to pick the FPS it runs at...it is kind of locked to two areas of values. So either you are working efficiently enough to manage around 90FPS, or you're running around/below 45 FPS.

I only have experience with 3D Vision, and even with the fps halved due to left/right eye thing, I still get 80-ish in stations, and over 140+ in general. As I said, I do not own any VR kits, so I don't know how it works, but wow... I never imagined the fps would drop even further, and I only have a GTX 1070 (with TrackIR)

 

[StiTch]

I only have experience with 3D Vision, and even with the fps halved due to left/right eye thing, I still get 80-ish in stations, and over 140+ in general. As I said, I do not own any VR kits, so I don't know how it works, but wow... I never imagined the fps would drop even further, and I only have a GTX 1070 (with TrackIR)

Lol the refresh rates of the VR sets can't actually do that - I believe both Rift and Vive can both only do 90 FPS max. And that's really, really fine if it were maintained. Unfortunately it falls through in all the fun places at higher quality; stations and asteroid fields, chiefly.

Boo. The game looks damn hot at very high quality settings in VR, but I'm not a man that will accept dropping smoothment of movement (coining that phrase) for nice quality. Especially in VR.

 

[Frank]

... so, at 60 fps each eye, the scene would not look "real" enough in a VR set?

wow.

The answer to that has really been muddied by the advances in VR drivers. I've been trying to find a John Carmack speech where he talks of something magic happening at around 100 fps, but that was before he developed time warping, and space warping.

It's difficult to describe the difference it makes when the images in your VR helmet respond quickly. I can only tell you about my experience...

I got a DK2 but my computer wasn't really capable of supplying the sort of graphic power needed for VR. I used it and found it pleasant enough, but I wanted to find out about this mystical experience of running it at 75Hz. I dropped all graphic settings down as low as I could to get the headset running as fast as I can, and I could tell what Carmack was talking about, even though it looked like the view through a frosted toilet window. It made me decide to buy the best graphics card I could afford, a GTX980.

 

[FoxTwo]

It's difficult to describe the difference it makes when the images in your VR helmet respond quickly. I can only tell you about my experience...

No, I get what you mean, sort of.

I'm just initially curious why 60 fps would not be "good enough" for VR. In general if a game drops below, say, 45 fps (normal, no VR no 3D), I can "feel" the sluggishness. But, as I said, I don't own a VR set, so I can only imagine what it might have felt like not to get a "smooth" movement, kinda like how I get irriated if a game is not 60 fps or so.

 

[CMDR MAIN SEQUENCE]

... so, at 60 fps each eye, the scene would not look "real" enough in a VR set?

It's not really about the image looking real or not, one of the main reasons is to do with nausea. Put simply, the higher the framerate, the less chance of the user experiencing nausea. If I turn off ASW and the framerate drops to below say 70, I immediately notice and start to feel nauseous when the ship/SRV is turning or if I'm turning my head.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

It is believed that anything below 90fps may result in worse perception and side effects like nausea and headaches. It's actually believed this is more of a "sensory response lag" issue, and having higher fps indirectly helps with that.
Personally I think that's nonsense ;-) because after a while you get accustomed to VR. Lifting off a docking pad in a coriolis used to give me "butterflies in the stomach", and now after a half year of owning the vive I can even svivel with external camera without breaking a sweat. Not saying I'm 100% immune to "simulation sickness" but I know I've get used to the feeling. Also with VR you're much more "sensitive" to every microstutter and inconsitencies in framerate and it is nausea inducing. I think it is highly individual thing however.

Below 45 fps the experiences are unplayable for me tbh.

some more reading material:

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-Virt...terms-of-computer-graphics-in-the-lower-rates
https://www.polygon.com/2016/3/17/11256142/sony-framerate-60fps-vr-certification

And back to the topic:
1080ti is about 30-50% faster than 980ti (source: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1715?vs=1856). Judging from that benchmark it delivers almost twice the fps as the 980ti in various applications. If you would manage to sell your 980ti and cover the difference, more power to you, I would however suggest looking at the rest of your system (CPU, RAM, SSD) and ask yourself if the GPU investment is justified. Especially that a lot of framerate issues in VR is sloppy coding which will improve over time with foveated rendering, dynamic resolution and other tricks. We have seen massive improvements with the steamvr performance test which at the beginning was slow and suggested anything but the highest configs as incapable.

I personally wait to next year and will decide if I should build a rig from the ground up or wait a bit more. I have a 1070 so GPU wise we're on similar level. I probably have an older CPU + RAM though (i53570k + DDR3 1600), hence I didn't jump to the more powerful 1080ti though I was tempted.

Also one thing to consider is the cryptocurrency craze which has elevated the GPU prices to insane levels so you need to be careful about the 1080ti price as some people try to elevate unjustedly.

EDIT: too long post and ninja'd by MAIN SEQUENCE ;-)

 

[dape]

very hard to be really objective. And when we talk about high/ultra SuperSampling etc. There are soooo many combinations of those settings it just is difficult to compare.
My rig is in my sig. I went from a 980 to 1080 to 1080TI. The step from 980 to 1080 was definately worth it. The step form 1080 to 1080TI not so much. Still an improvement but little for the money.

Stepping up from a 980TI to 1080TI? I would say it only depends on how much you like ASW. If you have no problem with ASW keep the 980TI. If you want solid 90FPS with decent settings get a 1080TI.

If you are interested I can post a pic of my EDProfiler settings for VR at which I can mostly maintain 90FPS.

 

[StiTch]

Also with VR you're much more "sensitive" to every microstutter and inconsitencies in framerate and it is nausea inducing. I think it is highly individual thing however.

The positive merits, and negative side effects, of VR are all incredibly subjective. Some people feel nauseous after a little time in most activities, some are pretty resilient. I know I'm not asking a straightforward question at all when I ask for an objective overview of whether the upgrade is worth it.

I luckily fall into the "resilient" camp by a very strong margin. Never, ever felt discomfort in any way outside of the headset pressing into my face for too long, no matter how much I launch my SRV around.

On the other hand I really hate judder or any kind of low FPS. Like, really. Even without VR I'd much rather do lowish quality and get a smooth experience.

If you would manage to sell your 980ti and cover the difference, more power to you, I would however suggest looking at the rest of your system (CPU, RAM, SSD) and ask yourself if the GPU investment is justified. Especially that a lot of framerate issues in VR is sloppy coding which will improve over time with foveated rendering, dynamic resolution and other tricks.

From earlier:

I've actually got a strong build and have been ousted only by the "techno power creep" Shadragon mentions. Good cooling/layout, water cooled hex core i7 w/ hyperthreading, SSD for OS and game installations, blah blah "I love my rig". My CPU or rest of system certainly isn't the bottleneck - I don't think my CPU even registers ED running sometimes.

Honestly, it's not a bad rig I have. Doesn't even consider breaking a sweat on anything but VR - silent enough most people don't even know it's turned on, lots of juice, runs smoothly.

Perhaps I have high quality settings, but VR in most forms is the only thing that asks my PC to push it. Shortly after starting most VR apps you can actually hear the fans running and there's quite obviously a bottleneck, but I am 99.9% certain that bottleneck is quite simply the power I get from my GPU...as you say, would probably be improved with more developed VR software/coding, but that's not something I can visit for improvements

It's not even a bad experience I get. Most settings are med/highish. But VR would totally be worth dropping a few hundred quid on IF I got the "90 FPS with every last setting at ultra" I have heard people preach the 1080ti as managing. Just maybe it's worth visiting a little cooling improvement for the GPU and overclocking a little more.

Oh, and cheers for the links

If you are interested I can post a pic of my EDProfiler settings for VR at which I can mostly maintain 90FPS.

Actually, that would be really handy if you don't mind.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

people preach the 1080ti as managing. Just maybe it's worth visiting a little cooling improvement for the GPU and overclocking a little more..

Every Pascal card before seemed to have some glass ceiling implemented by NVidia, where theoretically the temps are OK, the voltages are OK but the card suddenly throttles. If someone is able to OC the Ti, I think it will be by very small amount unless the Ti is an exception.
But at the current prices, I'd wait for Volta launch and see what its possible with the next generation. Oh and I will surely wait for the Ti version. Got burned with 1070 pretty badly in terms of price drop when the 80Ti showed up, lucky I didn't bought 1080 because I'd be even more salty.