Want to know if your PC will run VR / Vive without issues? Go here:
http://steamcommunity.com/games/250820/announcements/detail/666901094067803706
http://steamcommunity.com/games/250820/announcements/detail/666901094067803706
Test your PC to see if it can support VR
- Thread starter shadragon
- Start date
Thx
Very nice!!!
Yeah, not sure how useful the test is.
No way my 780ti is 'capable'.
Also, no frame drops below 90? Also makes it hard to believe the test.
With the text saying "Some VR titles have been tuned to display only at recommended visual fidelitey and may not run on this system", my system should really be in the 'not ready' category.
No way my 780ti is 'capable'.
Also, no frame drops below 90? Also makes it hard to believe the test.
With the text saying "Some VR titles have been tuned to display only at recommended visual fidelitey and may not run on this system", my system should really be in the 'not ready' category.
This is what it says for me.
Elite still judders all over in the DK2.
Elite still judders all over in the DK2.
I should also be ready.
And maybe ED also judders on my system. But also know that the software isn't released.
If you used beta iOS firmwares before on an iphone then you know that performance can be . Even days before the final release the lastest beta release was . And then, after the official release a few days later the performance was good and fixed.
1.9GB application that "tests" if your PC is "VR ready"? This seems strange considering that it's a bit variable depending on the game you play.
This is like saying your PC is fine and ready to play games. It doesn't seem to mean anything other than your PC is ready to play a game that might meet the individual specifications of the benchmark they provide (a sort of source game demo?)
Unless Steam VR has some odd standard that says all VR games must reach a certain frame-rate fixed to 2016 architecture, I can't see the point of this application.
It doesn't check if you have USB 3.0 either
This is like saying your PC is fine and ready to play games. It doesn't seem to mean anything other than your PC is ready to play a game that might meet the individual specifications of the benchmark they provide (a sort of source game demo?)
Unless Steam VR has some odd standard that says all VR games must reach a certain frame-rate fixed to 2016 architecture, I can't see the point of this application.
It doesn't check if you have USB 3.0 either
USB 2 or 3 are sufficient.
Deleted member 38366
D
Very arbitrary "test".
Not a single frame below 90fps - yet states "Your System is capable of rendering medium fidelity VR but does not meet the recommended spec!"
Well if there was a "recommended spec" for all future VR titles already (which' "fidelity" we don't even know) - we wouldn't need any Benchmarks, right?
It's a pseudo-test that essentially is an advertising platform for "Buy new Hardware!!111!"
Just marketing junk, not worth the Download.
For comparing to existing VR headsets "Recommended Hardware", one doesn't need a Benchmark.
PS.
The fairly old CPU is actually the weakest part of the performance chain in my tested System - yet it gets a green light *lol*
Last edited by a moderator:
That's assuming Vive though?
Consumer rift requires 3 x USB 3.0 http://wccftech.com/oculus-rift-system-requirements-updated/
Both are compatible with Steam VR?
Because it isn't just the CPU and GPU that tell the tale. You can see from the results that even those folks with decent CPU/GPU are still scoring low. Maybe because of motherboard or ram issues, too many other programs active, whatever, but it is a good indicator of you capacity to handle VR.
Last edited:
More capable system put out more frames during the test. Mine put out over 10,000 and was at the low to mid section of ready
. Also, I needed to tell it to use my GPU rather than integrated chip specifically.Running multiple times gives different answers depending on background processes too.
Last edited:
Because you need to know if JUST your video card needs upgrading. No good buying a GTX 980 TI if your motherboard, CPU or RAM is sub-standard.
Knowing if your GFX is the only barrier (or no barrier at all) is worth knowing before committing £400 to a graphics card and another £530-£690 to a HMD VR device. That's a lot of money to spend, only to find your CPU is a little under par.
http://www.falconfly.de/temp/STEAM-VR_Test.jpg
Very arbitrary "test".
Not a single frame below 90fps - yet states "Your System is capable of rendering medium fidelity VR but does not meet the recommended spec!"
Well if there was a "recommended spec" for all future VR titles already (which' "fidelity" we don't even know) - we wouldn't need any Benchmarks, right?
It's a pseudo-test that essentially is an advertising platform for "Buy new Hardware!!111!"
Just marketing junk, not worth the Download.
For comparing to existing VR headsets "Recommended Hardware", one doesn't need a Benchmark.
PS.
The fairly old CPU is actually the weakest part of the performance chain in my tested System - yet it gets a green light *lol*
The benchmark will and does reduce both the quality of the rendering in an effort to keep a minimum of 90 fps. What the benchmark sowed here is that while your system can keep 90 fps it has to do so at a large cost to the quality of the render. In effect the visual quality of the program seen in the HMD would be "crappy" hence it tells you that perhaps you should get a better card. Also, the program uses settings what the developer think would be a typical experience. In games like Elite Dangerous - your system probably would never reach 90 FPS on a stable basis or would have to degrade the graphics too much to maintain it, and that is if Fdev changed their rendering to adjust for FR.
Does not mean you have to get another card, if you can accept the quality when in the HDM.
Agreed, but the whole idea of buying premium VR gear like Vive is not to run it as base settings. I'm upgrading my card to run E: D in Ultra, but that's me. YMMV and if you can't afford to do the same then run it as you see fit at whatever res and settings your system can handle.
PS: That's a general "you" not you specifically.
Last edited:
Here's my results. My system isn't quite turned up to 11 but it might be ok. I left some monitoring software in the background while it ran. Note in GPU-Z it was pretty much under 100% load all the time. PerfCap is interesting. Green is power limiting, and magenta is thermal throttling. My 980Ti is a standard design card so it looks like I might need to beef up the cooling there. Can't be 100% sure but the two magenta peaks might correspond to the slight dips in performance in the bench test. Been thinking about going water for a while so maybe time to obtain and install some. Video card ram peaked at 3 GB so not too bad. CPU wise, I saw it peak at 2 cores worth, but this is with i7-6700k at 4.2 GHz and 3200 ram.
Gonna try my laptop next to see what it says about that
Last edited:
That's why I go with MSI cards and their Twin Frozr technology. Keeps the GPU cool and I can control the fan speeds granularity with their software. The nice thing is MSI supports AMD and NVIDIA so there are cards for everyone.