Recommended High-End Specs to run VR on HP Reverb G2

auricle74

A
Hi all,

I know the G2 isn't actually available in the wild yet, but I'm in the process of saving up for a PC to run ED on VR using the G2 (that sentence sounds like a nuclear launch code!).

I want to use the Nvidia RTX 3080 as the graphics card - also not really in the wild yet but I'm willing to wait as I'm saving up anyway.

What sort of specs do you VR veterans recommend to run ED in as high a quality as possible in VR with a high as frame rate as possible? From what I've read it's not as simple as just choosing a good graphics card, as I've noticed in this Reddit post, this guy was having low frame rate issues at certain points on a 3080 on a decently spec machine:

https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/izs2nz
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/izs2nz/hi_everyone_i_made_a_quick_review_benchmark_video/


Having a good VR experience in Elite Dangerous is like having a muscle car I presume - buying the parts is one thing, putting it all together and tuning it to get the best performance is another. That's why I humbly request your opinions. What computer spec would you recommend, and what tweaks do you recommend to get it all running well for ED on VR?

Thank you!
 

TorTorden_VR

T
At least a 6 core CPU, not counting hyperthreading, but it's kind of hard to find less than that these days.
And 16GB of ddr4 RAM at 3200mhz.

SSD for OS and games.

Here's the thing, VR ultra is a really bad preset, it has most settings no better than VR medium, and the only difference is to compound supersampling with HMD-Q.
So you get super sampling on top of supersampling, and compound multiplying the final resolution.
You will get far better visuals by just tweaking your own settings and most of all adjusting your supersampling settings your self, and only in one place.
With an HMD that has such a high native res, fact is you really won't need any supersampling at all allowing you to crank other settings.
The final resolution most play with, accounting for the SS is normally actually higher than what you would render with the G2, it's just that since they are trying to solve a hardware problem of not enough resolution by rendering even higher, and using that as sharpening\antialiasing tool.

A high native resolution will then in the end actually be less troublesome to render and look far better.
 

TorTorden_VR

T
Also, here are my settings I use for the rift-s, gets mostly decent fps.
What is not depicted is the HMD-Q supersampling option which is not available in 2d, much easier to screenshot from 2d.
Which I have at about 1.25x, that should not be all that far off the native resolution of the G2.
22HXVev.png
 

Dragsham

Dragsham
I have an Omen 2060 and slightly overclocked It all. My Rift S ss is 1.0
All the rest are on high or ultra.
Flys along nicely.
Use smaa too but I'm told anti aliasing isn't a big a deal in VR...I beg to differ.
Pre ordered the hp reverb g2.
Yay.. oh just wanted to know the difference between the two priced models ?
 

TorTorden_VR

T
Aa wasn't much point in the cv1, vive1.

They just simply didn't have the resolution, the pentile pixel structure didn't help.

So that was the case in 2016 and the threads and pinned recommendations from them is still the first thing people see, but the old recommendations are utterly irrelevant with just the upgrade to the S.

To me, AA gives a much smoother image, akin to running with av higher SS, but a fraction of the rendering cost.
 
Last edited:

Ashnak

Ashnak
Regarding graphics settings, you might find some illumination about what each of them does and how they impact performance in CMDR Exigeous' excellent video:

I'm running with no bloom, AA off.

Edit: AA just blurs the cockpit text - I don't like that. Most important setting I changed after that video was switching shadows to highest quality - no really perceptable impact on FPS (i.e. struggling to keep 90 in stations), but a massive change in visual quality.

My system: Ryzen 7, 1080ti, aphacool aio watercooling for both CPU and GPU (linked). CPU is basically idling, GPU is running flat out. Thinking about a 3080 so far, but there are also a few other comtestants rumored to enter the ring this year, and in any case alphacool doesn't have the Eiswolf (name for their aio watercooler blocks for GPUs) ready yet for the 3080.
 
Last edited:

TorTorden_VR

T
I'm also looking at a 3080, and she I'm hoping AMD can get back in the game.

But I find it incredibly surprised if Navi beats out anything bigger than the 2080.

And even if they did make something for 3080 prices that beats a 3090.

They will still have to show me they can support it.

I hopped off Radeon almost a decade ago because of unstable drivers, and I hear nothing to make reconsider that decision.

So for me to consider Radeon as a gpu, they will have to both compete on price and performance. And match Nvidia in software stability.

Intel, I don't expect much of a gaming oriented cpu, what I believe they are aiming for is making an upgradeable GPU for office machines, even text editors and web browser use the gpu these days.
 

Auricle

A
Hi all, I'm the OP who's changed my login (long story).

Thank you for all the replies, loads of useful info I can put into use. I'm still in the process of speccing out a new PC.

What do you guys think between an Intel i9 10900k and AMD Ryzen (insert equivalent here)? I'm not too up on the AMD offerings only ever using Intel (also use computer for music making). From a pure gaming perspective, is there any difference between Intel and AMD?
 

Balmung

Balmung
At the moment the only answer could be "Ryzen", Intel actually can not hold on with AMD because Intel still have problem with there new CPU generation. The i9 10900k is still the old Intel architecture and pushed at it maximum, the downside from it: much more power consuming. The Ryzen CPUs are much cooler and need less power.

The Ryzen 3900X have 2 more cores and is cheaper as the i9 10900k and the gaming performance is not much different. The Intel one have still a little bit more Single Core Performance, but only a too little bit.

But for gaming alone both are a bit over the top. I don't think we will see much games in the next 5 years that use 10 (20 Threads) or 12 (24 Threads) cores. Such a high power CPU makes more sense when you do more than gaming with your PC. It's like the VRAM of a RTX 3090, nice to have so much, but more useful outside of games.
 

TorTorden_VR

T
Ryzen cpu's are very good, and I doubt anyone would notice much difference between the two in elite.

Strictly from a gaming standpoint Intel has a frequency advantage that often has a small impact on older titles, that are more core bound or less multi threading capable.

The higher end ryzen cpu's are more like workstations, and some would even say the middle ranged ones do as well, even better as those with a slightly lower core count since these can clock up faster for games.

All these differences are tiny, like close to the margin of error tiny.

A g2 reverb would more than likely be able to be limited by a gpu.

Either would not be a bad choice in any regards.
 
Last edited:

Ashnak

Ashnak
Auricle said:
What do you guys think between an Intel i9 10900k and AMD Ryzen (insert equivalent here)? I'm not too up on the AMD offerings only ever using Intel (also use computer for music making). From a pure gaming perspective, is there any difference between Intel and AMD?
Click to expand...
I switched from Intel to AMD this year and haven't regretted it yet. Ryzen currently has the clear advantage. For me, the Ryzen 7 3800X on a B550 motherboard was the sweet spot - the XTs are not worth the premium price for me, and neither were the Ryzen 9s (which are sold as the equivalent to Intel's i9s). One additional point for AMD which may or may not be relevant for you is that they support PCIe3.0, which allows for faster SSD access - once the SSDs are available, which they slowly become.
For ED right now, though, that CPU runs barely above idle - 25% or so CPU load.

Yes, Intels can run with higher CPU clock - as long as you only use a single core. The current crop of Intels (i.e. 10xxx) is running flat out against the thermal limit, almost no matter how many cores you use. Check the current benchmark websites, and this becomes rather evident. A few years ago, this was the other way round - but right now, AMD beats Intel for every practical usage (and most synthetic benchmarks).

That said - as you can see from my CPU load above, the practical difference for ED is within the margin of error, as neither processor from a current (desktop) series will be overly stressed with running ED.
 

VR - wickfut

VR - wickfut
TorTorden said:
Also, here are my settings I use for the rift-s, gets mostly decent fps.
Click to expand...
Not being funny but I had a 2080Ti running a Reverb. There's no way in hell you could go to a busy dog fight in an asteroid field or enter a station with those settings with a Reverb without lots of stutters. It's more like near everything set to Low/off with textures set to high to get a 100% smooth game in all areas with 100% scaling.
 

Auricle

A
Thank you all for your comments. Loads to think about and reference - especially the video, that's a totally invaluable resource!
 

Auricle

A
Why did the Reverb stutter? That's a pretty good graphics card, and setting everything to low/off is pretty disappointing.
wickfut said:
Not being funny but I had a 2080Ti running a Reverb. There's no way in hell you could go to a busy dog fight in an asteroid field or enter a station with those settings with a Reverb without lots of stutters. It's more like near everything set to Low/off with textures set to high to get a 100% smooth game in all areas with 100% scaling.
Click to expand...
 

Space Dandy

Space Dandy
Just fyi lots of the AiB 3080 seem to be having issues with CTD's due to a capacitor problem or some such...look into it before buying the new rtx 3k line.
 

TorTorden_VR

T
Space Dandy said:
Just fyi lots of the AiB 3080 seem to be having issues with CTD's due to a capacitor problem or some such...look into it before buying the new rtx 3k line.
Click to expand...
That's going to be solved by next batch, either some of the aib's will upgrade their caps to even better reflect reference.

More likely they flash the BIOS on the cards so the auto boost goes to 2300mhz instead of 2340mhz.

Marketing wise I'd also expect both.
Switch a cap or two, but also adjust the peak clock in bios.

As for cpu, if go with Ryzen myself as well, if anything down to the high heat and power draw of the Intel's.
As pci-e 4. I don't think that will matter with this cycle yet, not even with the caching feature.
That's another thing developers has to activated I believe, and frontier won't.
 

sgurr

S
wickfut said:
Not being funny but I had a 2080Ti running a Reverb. There's no way in hell you could go to a busy dog fight in an asteroid field or enter a station with those settings with a Reverb without lots of stutters. It's more like near everything set to Low/off with textures set to high to get a 100% smooth game in all areas with 100% scaling.
Click to expand...
Do you like/use WMR reprojection?

Using a Reverb/1080ti I can't get solid 90hz, but I can get a solid 45+ with reprojection running and it's my preference over low graphics settings at 90.
 

Auricle

A
This is turning into an interesting discussion, I'm very glad!

Still thinking on my build. What do you guys think? Air or liquid cooled? In the past I'd use a high quality Noctua CPU cooler with no problems, but depending on the motherboard design, I'm concerned that the rather large RTX 3080 would get in the way of the massive Noctua NH-D15 for example.

I have zero experience of liquid cooling, by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom