And 6.0 beta runtime is out again for download!https://developer.oculus.com/downloads/#version=pc-0.6.0.0-beta
More infos here https://www.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/
Last edited:
CV1 recommanded specs!
- Thread starter atlas974
- Start date
More infos here https://www.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/
It's good to see, though I was hoping for the specs of the CV1 to be out today too 
I have an i5 3570 and a GTX 970, so should be ok for CV1, especially when I SLI. Both CPU and GPU are OC'd and drivers etc should be improved by then too
I have an i5 3570 and a GTX 970, so should be ok for CV1, especially when I SLI. Both CPU and GPU are OC'd and drivers etc should be improved by then too
That's nonsense. A 970 barely runs the DK2, and with 2.5 times the number of pixels and additional 15hz, I have no idea how they believe it will also handle the CV1
This site let's you see the differences in resolution at 120 FOV in a 3D web app.
Currently the CV1 sits between the DK2 and his predicted resolution of the CV1. I.e. it's LESS than the CV1 on that site. Which is such a shame as it isn't that huge an improvement.
This site let's you see the differences in resolution at 120 FOV in a 3D web app.
Currently the CV1 sits between the DK2 and his predicted resolution of the CV1. I.e. it's LESS than the CV1 on that site. Which is such a shame as it isn't that huge an improvement.
Last edited:
The specs are a guideline for developers to target their game performance at. What they're saying is "this spec here should be capable of running your game at 90 Hz with some headroom".
The only way for them to do that is by decreasing graphic quality and laying off some of the newer effects.
This was always going to be the case. Oculus wants to sell headsets, games developers want to sell games. Less than 2% of the entire gaming market is using cards like SLI 970's or single/SLI 980's. Probably less than 10% of the market is using cards from 290/970 and upwards. As mentioned in the article, both those cards will drop in price over time. That's the benchmark and it's gonna be the benchmark for the lifetime of the CV1.
The only way for them to do that is by decreasing graphic quality and laying off some of the newer effects.
This was always going to be the case. Oculus wants to sell headsets, games developers want to sell games. Less than 2% of the entire gaming market is using cards like SLI 970's or single/SLI 980's. Probably less than 10% of the market is using cards from 290/970 and upwards. As mentioned in the article, both those cards will drop in price over time. That's the benchmark and it's gonna be the benchmark for the lifetime of the CV1.
Will probably upgrade for it, but it seems the good VR experience will be beyond the hardware of the vast majority of gamers with the listed requirements. My setup that runs current titles on high settings and 60 FPS is already too dated for the CV1.
Look at it more like the devs will attempt to get their game running on medium settings at 90Hz with a 290/970. If you have a lesser card say a 280X/770 or maybe even a 270/660 then it might run on low settings at 90Hz.
Last edited:
I think that one of the key specs that developers should adhere to is this:
In other words, for the recommended setting game devs need to make sure that their product can always output at least the minimum rendering requirements of 400 Millions shaded pixel / sec. So, if one codes for lesser hardware, then one will have to reduce graphic complexity to remain in the stated budget.
In other words, for the recommended setting game devs need to make sure that their product can always output at least the minimum rendering requirements of 400 Millions shaded pixel / sec. So, if one codes for lesser hardware, then one will have to reduce graphic complexity to remain in the stated budget.
I am glad to read this, "For the full Rift experience, we recommend the following system."
.
In that statement the keywords are 'Full Rift experience'.
.
Let's face it, the DK2 is simply not efficient. I have always thought that it is about 30-40% less efficient than it should be.
I believe that even the people with 700 series will be at the same place we 970 people are at today, which isn't too shabby.
Of course, this is all JMHO, and I am by no means an expert.
.
In that statement the keywords are 'Full Rift experience'.
.
Let's face it, the DK2 is simply not efficient. I have always thought that it is about 30-40% less efficient than it should be.
I believe that even the people with 700 series will be at the same place we 970 people are at today, which isn't too shabby.
Of course, this is all JMHO, and I am by no means an expert.
Stoked cannot wait c'mon pre-order
I wouldn't personally take terrible graphics in exchange for VR, but I suppse some might.
Last edited:
the devs will be optimizing for VR and this alone will help (hopefully!)
but that beings said
you need to be able to render 1440p in each eye
5820k@4.6ghz and single gtx 980 overclocked to 1550mhz I cant use super sampling in game of 2x (in res/stations)
nvidia dsr doesnt count as it doesnt throw 1.5, 1.78 or 2x the resolution all the time. its dynamic..
but 1080p x2 is more than 1440p. its 4k=3840 X 2160
so id say gtx 970 as bare minimum, which is what we all expected.
right now it takes sli 980's to do 2x SS which is 4k res.
1080p = 1920x1080
1440p = 2,560 x 1,440
imagine in game SS with CV, 1440p x2 = 5k right?
but that beings said
you need to be able to render 1440p in each eye
5820k@4.6ghz and single gtx 980 overclocked to 1550mhz I cant use super sampling in game of 2x (in res/stations)
nvidia dsr doesnt count as it doesnt throw 1.5, 1.78 or 2x the resolution all the time. its dynamic..
but 1080p x2 is more than 1440p. its 4k=3840 X 2160
so id say gtx 970 as bare minimum, which is what we all expected.
right now it takes sli 980's to do 2x SS which is 4k res.
1080p = 1920x1080
1440p = 2,560 x 1,440
imagine in game SS with CV, 1440p x2 = 5k right?
Last edited:
Yes, but you are speaking my language as I have the REST OF THE BUILD
I got titan x sli and you can run 2x in game super sampling but on the dk2 its no better than than 1.5x. There is only so much you can polish a turd. Tried 3x supersampling to see if there was improvement by different factors. No improvement in visuals and pretty jerky.
So what does 1.5x supersample x the normal resolution to run dk2 (1440p rendered?). Somewhere between 1440p and 2160p ?
I am disappointed if that is the resolution, I understand why it is low for mass adoption etc but slight shame. Ah well wait to the real specs come out etc
So what does 1.5x supersample x the normal resolution to run dk2 (1440p rendered?). Somewhere between 1440p and 2160p ?
I am disappointed if that is the resolution, I understand why it is low for mass adoption etc but slight shame. Ah well wait to the real specs come out etc
So, fairly naive question here, but...
Out of curiosity what does the i5-4590 have that some of the older 4 core processors like the i5-2500K, doesn't? In terms of cache, clock speed etc. they are supposedly the same. Is it some of the technologies on the newer processors like full PCI Express 3, or the memory bandwidth, that make it more suitable for the OR.
Out of curiosity what does the i5-4590 have that some of the older 4 core processors like the i5-2500K, doesn't? In terms of cache, clock speed etc. they are supposedly the same. Is it some of the technologies on the newer processors like full PCI Express 3, or the memory bandwidth, that make it more suitable for the OR.