GTX 970 Useless for VR?

tommybhoy · 18 Nov 2015 at 20:51

Saw that Cryteks Back to Dinosaur Island VR Demo has been released on Steam, to learn that the 970 doesn't meet minimum requirements! :eek:

System Requirements
MINIMUM:
OS: Windows 7, 8 or 10 (64bit)
Processor: Intel Core i7-2600K CPU 3.40GHz
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 980 or AMD Radeon R9 290
DirectX: Version 11
Hard Drive: 2 GB available space
Additional Notes: Oculus Rift DK2 required, SDK Version 0.6 or 0.7 (0.8 coming in the future)

http://store.steampowered.com/app/412940?beta=1

Doesn't meet Elite Dangerous minimum requirement either:

To run Elite Dangerous: Horizons in VR players will need:

OS: Windows 7/8/10 64 bit
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K Quad Core CPU or better / AMD FX 4350 Quad Core CPU or better
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 980 with 4GB or better
Network: Broadband Internet Connection
Hard Drive: 8 GB available space

Gregster · 18 Nov 2015 at 20:52

It does look very demanding, so if you want to run it well, time to upgrade.

tommybhoy · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:00

More shocked that the 290 which is comparable in performance with the 970 in everything else but not on VR.

Or

Maybe it's just not good enough running VR Cryengine, time will tell I suppose.

shankly1985 · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:04

I feel this is because AMDs work alongside VR. They might have better support early on = better optimisation for amd GPUs.

thebennyboy · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:07

The 290X has the same raw compute power as the TX so the minimum graphics doesn't surprise me.

kayomani · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:18

Oculus Rift SDK Version xx requried

This is largely why I am looking at getting an Oculus over a Vive

Simon Belmont · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:48

I have no interest in VR what so ever.

Gregster · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:51

kayomani said:
This is largely why I am looking at getting an Oculus over a Vive

I am still tempted to say **** it and grab a Rift now but common sense tells me to wait till they have a higher res.

shankly1985 · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:55

Simon Belmont said:
I have no interest in VR what so ever.

Am also the same but do want to try it before I make my choice on it..

Gregster · 18 Nov 2015 at 21:55

shankly1985 said:
Am also the same but do want to try it before I make my choice on it..

Then you do have an interest lol

bru · 8 Dec 2015 at 23:29

I would suggest someone try it on a 970 to see how it runs, as they also say it needs 16GB of ram, which I fairly sure it doesn't actually need that much.

tommybhoy · 8 Dec 2015 at 23:40

bru said:
I would suggest someone try it on a 970 to see how it runs

Probably, but it's not looking good for 970 VR all the same as it's not meeting minimum specs on higher end VR titles...

To run Elite Dangerous: Horizons in VR players will need:

OS: Windows 7/8/10 64 bit
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K Quad Core CPU or better / AMD FX 4350 Quad Core CPU or better
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 980 with 4GB or better
Network: Broadband Internet Connection
Hard Drive: 8 GB available space

Maybe the GTX 970 is useless for VR.

Gregster · 8 Dec 2015 at 23:54

Well I should be able to report on frames using the Rift tomorrow so long as mine turns up and then we would have a better gauge of what is needed. Seeing how Horizons can bring my TX under 60 fps at 1440P, I would imagine a 970 would be fine for VR with some of the settings toned down but unless someone with a 970 has a Rift and plays ED, then we will never know.

andybird123 · 9 Dec 2015 at 00:05

Bear in mind that no titles are currently using multi-resolution-rendering and so are having to massively over-render to create the image... Oculus say, in general, that a 970 is the minimum for the consumer rift which isn't even out yet

opethdisciple · 9 Dec 2015 at 00:08

System specs for games are next to useless these days. It's mostly just done to sell Intel CPU's or Graphics cards.

For example, a lot of games these days 'Recommend' and the latest i7. When in reality my little 3570k is dong a grand job.

A 970 is not that far off a 980. Especially the overclocked ones.

Flashheart · 9 Dec 2015 at 00:14

I had a dk2. Sold it whilst the demand was still there. It is incredible, a higher res will launch it into the stratosphere.

I initially used it on an old 7970 ghz edition and then for some time with a 970.

ED tan very well in vr at almost max settings. TBH there was no perceptable difference turning the settings down a notch to maintain the 75fps. Genuinely its the vr itself. Vr when done properly is so incredible, the graphics take a side step.

Half life 2 was by far the best game I played in vr, just incredible being inside the game that I grew up with. And the graphics arnt special in that anymore.

The gtx 970 will be just fine.

Gregster · 9 Dec 2015 at 10:48

opethdisciple said:
System specs for games are next to useless these days. It's mostly just done to sell Intel CPU's or Graphics cards.

For example, a lot of games these days 'Recommend' and the latest i7. When in reality my little 3570k is dong a grand job.

A 970 is not that far off a 980. Especially the overclocked ones.

True that. Not sure why they do this, as it could put a lot of people off buying the game and yet, said game can run just fine on lower spec GPUs/CPUs/Memory

Rilot · 9 Dec 2015 at 12:41

It will run but the minimum specs are for running it at 60fps+. VR is very, VERY frame rate dependent. 30fps just looks awful and induces nausea in me. Even 60fps isn't really enough hence CV1 will go up to 90fps.
A single frame drop in VR is very jarring so the system requirements for when CV1 is released are going to be mental.

VR on PCs isn't going to be mainstream even after VC1 is released simply due to the GPU requirements.

Seanspeed · 9 Dec 2015 at 13:18

opethdisciple said:
System specs for games are next to useless these days. It's mostly just done to sell Intel CPU's or Graphics cards.

They're not useless and they aren't designed to sell CPU's or GPU's.

The problem is that a lot of developers dont actually go through a ton of different hardware configurations to actually test this stuff out. They typically make a guesstimate as to what they presume will work ok, or they just go with the hardware they were developing on specifically as they know it works.

I'd expect the 970 to be just fine for something recommending a 980 for the most part. Especially if you overclock it. There's a chance you might have to turn down a setting or two, but there's no big gulf between a 970 and a 980 that suddenly makes the 970 useless.

Plus Oculus have recommended devs target 970 hardware, which is what *most* of them building actual product titles are specifically using and targeting to ensure a 970(or a 290) is sufficient.

So yea, I wouldn't worry. I'm not. Though I do plan on upgrading once Pascal comes out, as better is always nice. Just being able to throw more AA at the image is going to be a big advantage in VR.

Seanspeed · 9 Dec 2015 at 13:19

Gregster said:
True that. Not sure why they do this, as it could put a lot of people off buying the game and yet, said game can run just fine on lower spec GPUs/CPUs/Memory

It's becoming a gripe of mine. For instance, some recent games have 'minimum specs' that basically equate to console graphics and performance(so 1080p/30fps/medium-high settings). That is in no way 'minimum'. Some people might be fine running it at a lower resolution or with reduced settings, but they wont buy your game because you told them it doesn't even meet minimum requirements.

It's nonsense.