And it's just the minimum requirements. So what is the recommended amount of memory for VR Horizons? 32GB? 64GB?
VR minimum specification for Elite Dangerous (DK2)
- Thread starter Zac Antonaci
- Start date
And it's just the minimum requirements. So what is the recommended amount of memory for VR Horizons? 32GB? 64GB?
And ditto re: the GTX 980 ... so what's recommended?
There are currently only two better cards in existence according to the Tom's hardware hierarchy, the 980Ti and the Titan Z.
Surely those spec's must be "recommended" and not "minimum"?
Last edited:
That's what I was thinking. But if they meant recommended then the i7 3770 seems to low end unless Elite Dangerous doesn't need fancy processing power.
Last edited:
Based on RAM usage i'm seeing for 2.0 beta; 16GB is probably to help with disk caching when loading large planetary textures.. This is another step towards reducing frame rate drops ..
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
3770K isnt' exactly low end; i7-4770K is only about 10% faster, and the i7-6700K is on the order of ~ 30-35% faster overall. A lot of that can be closed by OC'ing the 3770K a little bit.. 3770K is probably mid-range+ these days (i.e. able to hang with an i5-6600K in many cases -- see here: http://anandtech.com/bench/product/551?vs=1544 ).
Fury X and Fury are also faster except of some titels with insane tesselation (which can be lowered by driver without making a difference in quality for amd cards). We have to look for 1440p and 4k performance not 1080p.
Last edited:
Textures? They will be streamed in/out of VRAM.
Interesting how people here go like :"980? That's extreme... 970 is fine..."
I'm sorry? It's not a negotiation... That's the Recommended Minimum and I am sure that's correct.
Why?
The system mentioned here is exactly what I am running currently, with my Oculus DK2.
I run almost everything on Ultra. Although I wonder still if AA is actually adding anything to VR as it seems not to work.
Considering that, you might be fine without it, which would lower your need.
But I still have FPS drops in Supercruise and around stations... I can't maintain 60FPS all the time.
Now here's some stuff I might share:
1. I used to run an i5 before I upgraded to this i7 3770K.
I upgraded, because I had Judder all the bloody time. So I can tell you.. it's the Minimum. Lower Graphical Settings didn't fix anything for me.
2. I'm ONLY running a DK2. Let's keep in mind that a VR headset requires Double Rendering. On a DK2 the resolution is 960 x 1080 per eye.
On the Vive or the Oculus CV1 the Resolution is jumping up: to 1080x1200 per eye.
Also the Vive runs at 90HZ and the DK2 runs at 60HZ
Both changes will not just increase the required GPU power.. it pretty much exponentially grows it, because it has to render the game twice. So the increase in demanded processing power is increased twice.
This is not even exact science, but it's clear to me that you will need some pretty damn solid Processing power.
ANyway.. that's my 2 cents.
I was planning on Upgrading.. as I realised that my current system wouldn't be enough for VR in 2016.
Seems I was right.
p.s.: I'm not even playing Horizons yet.. no idea what that will do. but I expect that it will increase the needed GPU power.
I'm sorry? It's not a negotiation... That's the Recommended Minimum and I am sure that's correct.
Why?
The system mentioned here is exactly what I am running currently, with my Oculus DK2.
I run almost everything on Ultra. Although I wonder still if AA is actually adding anything to VR as it seems not to work.
Considering that, you might be fine without it, which would lower your need.
But I still have FPS drops in Supercruise and around stations... I can't maintain 60FPS all the time.
Now here's some stuff I might share:
1. I used to run an i5 before I upgraded to this i7 3770K.
I upgraded, because I had Judder all the bloody time. So I can tell you.. it's the Minimum. Lower Graphical Settings didn't fix anything for me.
2. I'm ONLY running a DK2. Let's keep in mind that a VR headset requires Double Rendering. On a DK2 the resolution is 960 x 1080 per eye.
On the Vive or the Oculus CV1 the Resolution is jumping up: to 1080x1200 per eye.
Also the Vive runs at 90HZ and the DK2 runs at 60HZ
Both changes will not just increase the required GPU power.. it pretty much exponentially grows it, because it has to render the game twice. So the increase in demanded processing power is increased twice.
This is not even exact science, but it's clear to me that you will need some pretty damn solid Processing power.
ANyway.. that's my 2 cents.
I was planning on Upgrading.. as I realised that my current system wouldn't be enough for VR in 2016.
Seems I was right.
p.s.: I'm not even playing Horizons yet.. no idea what that will do. but I expect that it will increase the needed GPU power.
Last edited:
Could we please get the AMD equivalent graphics card for this recommendation
@Zac, will it be possible to do VR without 3D (stereoscopy)? About 10% of people cannot see 3D anyway, so it would be wasteful for them to render two views. Will that reduce the hardware requirements?
My machine meets/beats most of the requirements. However, I have a pair of Asus Strix GTX970 cards, SLi linked. Does this meet the needs for VR?
I was waiting for Oculus Rift consumer version to be released, and had thought the above specs would be enough to future-proof me for a while.. Am I still OK in light of the requirements? I initially just planned on upgrading to 16GB RAM, hoped my GPUs in Crossfire would cut it. Am I wrong?
I'm hoping SLI will work well for it, I actually have a 3rd 970 I was given that I'm going to add to my machine in the hopes it'll be enough to get me some good VR going
I'm not really sure why people are shocked, VR is going to be cutting edge technology. You're going to need as much power as you can get to run 90hz x2, probably more than what is listed here to be honest.
VR isn't going to be a casual affair at first. You're going to want the very best equipment available today, or better yet, whatever newer gear is available when the VR sets actually launch.
VR isn't going to be a casual affair at first. You're going to want the very best equipment available today, or better yet, whatever newer gear is available when the VR sets actually launch.
I'm glad I saw this now. I was about to finance gear to upgrade my PC to be ready for VR (specifically for Elite: Dangerous) It looks like I'll have to completely rebuild as my MoBo will only accommodate the minimum required CPU here (Socket 1155)
I was also going to invest in a 980 TI, but seeing how that's so close to minimum, I'm not exactly interested in investing so much to get the least amount of horsepower.
I guess I'll revisit the idea of upgrading for Elite in VR in late 2016 / early 2017. This is far too rich for my blood (and I was ready to invest $1500)
I was also going to invest in a 980 TI, but seeing how that's so close to minimum, I'm not exactly interested in investing so much to get the least amount of horsepower.
I guess I'll revisit the idea of upgrading for Elite in VR in late 2016 / early 2017. This is far too rich for my blood (and I was ready to invest $1500)
Well, so much for my dreams of being able to play E: D with VR at some point. I just purchased (and was barely able to afford) a GTX 970. The GTX 980 is just way too expensive of a beast for me to be able to afford in the foreseeable future.... 
Plus I only have 8G of RAM for the time-being, so I'm out of luck there, too.
I thought that "minimum requirements" were something along the lines of "this is the lowest you can go and get ok results," with a "recommended requirements" showing how to get the best experience. If what's listed here is what is considered "minimum," I'd hate to see what the "recommended" requirements are...
Plus I only have 8G of RAM for the time-being, so I'm out of luck there, too.I thought that "minimum requirements" were something along the lines of "this is the lowest you can go and get ok results," with a "recommended requirements" showing how to get the best experience. If what's listed here is what is considered "minimum," I'd hate to see what the "recommended" requirements are...
Well a 980 is only 20-25% faster than a 970 in most cases. So if your 980 runs the game fine on ultra with a DK2 then I'd expect that a 970 would run the game fine on low settings with a CV1 or Vive. After all the "recommended minimum" should be aimed at running the game on low, not running it on ultra. On the other hand I have a 970 and tend to run it on low on the DK2 because I do get drops on ultra. And if the game needs more than 3.5 GB of video ram then the 970 might not be practical.
DK2 is 75 Hz, not 60. Also what you're describing is a linear increase in processing requirements, not exponential. The CV1 and the Vive have 25% more pixels at 20% higher framerate. That is exactly 50% more pixels per second than the DK2. Given how close the 970 and 980 are in performance I'd be a bit disappointed if FD can get the game running smoothly on a 980 but not a 970.
Last edited:
I don't know, this seems very harsh considering my GTX 970 SLI never exceeds 30% on any individual card on Ultra 1080p @60 fps. The game has problems every time its assigned RAM hits 4GB, but neither my GPUs(individual load 30%) nor my CPU(20% load with browser and media player running in the background) are anywhere near limit. Also, nothing against Elite Dangerous, but it looks much less impressive than Eve Valkyrie does (not even mentioning SC), and that game has ships that exceed a length of 18km! Maybe try to implement DX12? According to some asian guys it took 2 software engineers 2 weeks to implement it into their game, so it seems like it's doable. Now, lets just to some math:
On low, my GTX 970 SLI runs at around 15-20% per individual card tops on 1080p (1920x1080@60fps = 124416000 pixel per second). Lets say that ED really has to calculate the whole thing 2 times (which it does not have to), so we have 2x 1080x1200@90fps = 2 x 116640000 pixel per second, which SHOULD produce about 2 times the load of 1080p by this calculation (or the recommended specs for ED as a whole need to change, which is something that could infuriate quite a few people). Now, not mentioning that SLI does not double performance per % total load (it's actually more a increase of 1.8 in most cases), that should come out to about 60-80% load on low on an GTX 970, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me at least.
If they say the minimum is a GTX 980, that would mean that the game would take a load of about 120% on the GTX 970 tops ON LOW. That's 50% more than the calculated maximum load we have up there (which is quite a pessimistic calculation really, it should be lower), what does ED do that creates 50% more load on VR but not on normal gameplay? I get that you can't precompute frames on VR (which, btw, increases load but decreaes VRam-usage which currently tops out @ 2.5GB on Ultra on GTX 970 SLI which is probably a worst case setup for the VRam) as it increases latency, but both NVidia and AMD offer options that precompute everything they can and only compute perspective relevant information the very last moment, reducing latency.
Either the recommended specs for ED as a whole change or I'm missing something important here, where to those 50% come from? Heck, CCP has gone on record saying that Eve Valkyrie will be pretty safe with "the new GTX 900 series or the AMD 200 series", which is partially BELOW the recommended specs for the Oculus Rift itself! Both games look pretty similar to me. Maybe ED VR has just sloppy optimization and I'm reading too much into this.
On low, my GTX 970 SLI runs at around 15-20% per individual card tops on 1080p (1920x1080@60fps = 124416000 pixel per second). Lets say that ED really has to calculate the whole thing 2 times (which it does not have to), so we have 2x 1080x1200@90fps = 2 x 116640000 pixel per second, which SHOULD produce about 2 times the load of 1080p by this calculation (or the recommended specs for ED as a whole need to change, which is something that could infuriate quite a few people). Now, not mentioning that SLI does not double performance per % total load (it's actually more a increase of 1.8 in most cases), that should come out to about 60-80% load on low on an GTX 970, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me at least.
If they say the minimum is a GTX 980, that would mean that the game would take a load of about 120% on the GTX 970 tops ON LOW. That's 50% more than the calculated maximum load we have up there (which is quite a pessimistic calculation really, it should be lower), what does ED do that creates 50% more load on VR but not on normal gameplay? I get that you can't precompute frames on VR (which, btw, increases load but decreaes VRam-usage which currently tops out @ 2.5GB on Ultra on GTX 970 SLI which is probably a worst case setup for the VRam) as it increases latency, but both NVidia and AMD offer options that precompute everything they can and only compute perspective relevant information the very last moment, reducing latency.
Either the recommended specs for ED as a whole change or I'm missing something important here, where to those 50% come from? Heck, CCP has gone on record saying that Eve Valkyrie will be pretty safe with "the new GTX 900 series or the AMD 200 series", which is partially BELOW the recommended specs for the Oculus Rift itself! Both games look pretty similar to me. Maybe ED VR has just sloppy optimization and I'm reading too much into this.
That omission is no accident. Amd has a nasty bug with supercruise that they're taking their sweet time fixing.
Like many i bought a 970 as per recomended for VR. I dont want to sell it at a loss for getting a 980. The best FD can do is work with nvidia to implement VR sli, that way each 970 renders each display independent and that brings much better performance than a single 980, and we dont lose as much money. And no madmyke, you cant reply me again.
Last edited: