SteamVR Performance Test

varkanoid · 23 Feb 2016 at 10:17

Has anyone run this whilst actually using VR ?

just wondered.

MrZippo · 23 Feb 2016 at 12:24

Here is my result

spot35 · 23 Feb 2016 at 12:41

Getting 4.4 with dual Titan Blacks. Pretty poor TBH.

JeffyB · 23 Feb 2016 at 13:28

GTX 980 @ 1450/2000

Scurburg · 23 Feb 2016 at 13:35

Not sure I'm that interested in VR but good to know anyway.
[email protected]
390x@1156/1750

eddyr · 23 Feb 2016 at 16:50

spot35 said:
Getting 4.4 with dual Titan Blacks. Pretty poor TBH.

Anything below 90fps or where settings had to drop below medium to sustain fps gets rated poorly. SLI issue aside, a mild overclock would see you easily above that threshold with 1 Titan black.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Seems a bit of a stupid test if it does not work with SLI or XFire which does not use AFR in VR,since it dedicates one card to each display.

So realistically its not really that great a test,unless OFC SteamVR won't support dual cards which is dumb.

It appear Xfire is working. AMD claimed Nano's in Xfire get 11 in comparison to a score of 8 alone.
http://techreport.com/news/29752/steamvr-performance-test-grades-pcs-on-their-vr-readiness

Techreport said:
AMD brought this test to our attention, and the company actually sheds a bit more light on what this benchmark does than Valve's official release notes do. According to AMD, this test uses a technique called dynamic fidelity to adjust image quality to the level needed to maintain a high enough frame rate for a good VR experience.

Going by that description, the rather vague graph in Valve's report seems to tell us how much time cards can spend at various image quality levels. Unsurprisingly, then, the GeForce GTX 980 Ti's flat line at "Very High" means it didn't have to adjust image quality at all, while the GeForce GTX 970's more variable graph might indicate that more on-the-fly graphics settings changes were happening behind the scenes to keep frame times down.

spot35 · 23 Feb 2016 at 16:54

eddyr said:
Anything below 90fps or where settings had to drop below medium to sustain fps gets rated poorly. SLI issue aside, a mild overclock would see you easily above that threshold with 1 Titan black.

I'll give it a bash. Was going to try with SLI off and a mild overclock tonight, actually. See what that does...

RichardH754 · 23 Feb 2016 at 17:40

Jenkinio · 23 Feb 2016 at 18:07

Useful link, thanks.

My rig failed woefully, down to my GPU apparently. No great surprise there, though it didn't appear to be running X fire and it would be interesting to see if it was capable as 2 X 7950s.

Lokken86 · 23 Feb 2016 at 18:12

Tried again with the newest drivers. Little better.

Disco_P · 23 Feb 2016 at 18:35

Not bad for a 3 year old GPU and 4 year old CPU.

dafadau · 23 Feb 2016 at 18:43

nutsnut · 23 Feb 2016 at 18:58

Xfire seems to be working fine for me now with the launch options set. Score 1.4 before and now

stephenb · 23 Feb 2016 at 19:21

SLI on a pair of 780's not working for me.

nutsnut · 23 Feb 2016 at 19:29

I had 99% and 97% utilisation across both cards.

Gregster · 23 Feb 2016 at 19:41

Looks like I am ok

spot35 · 23 Feb 2016 at 19:50

spot35 said:
I'll give it a bash. Was going to try with SLI off and a mild overclock tonight, actually. See what that does...

Yep. Turned off SLI and applied a mild overclock and now getting 6.1.

MarkeR · 23 Feb 2016 at 20:30

I2500k @ 4.4
970 G1 at stock.
Better than I thought it would be..

triss · 23 Feb 2016 at 20:34

Gregster said:
Looks like I am ok

You have a cpu bound frame greg time for a Cpu upgrade

I think your about the one one i've seen with it. Didnt happen to be running other stuff aswell?

Superted854 · 23 Feb 2016 at 21:43

My score went up with freesync enabled vs disabled.

Sapphire Fury Pro @ 1100/600