AMD 7900 vs Nvidia 4080 vr game benchmarks
- Thread starter Tykey
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,715
I think it's simply down to pure power, and the fact for those headsets which require conversion (USB/Wifi not Displayport) the encoding is better.
My headset (pico4) native res is 2160x2160 but the way the lenses work requires the GPU to run at 3152x3152, and that's per eye. Basically it's rendering 19.8m pixels compared to regular 4K monitor which is 8.2m so over double. That's a lot of pixels, and you also absolutely have to maintain the headsets fps which is usually either 72fps or 90fps else you end up with a blury mess and sickness. If that wasn't enough, when going over wifi or USB, you are also using the GPU to encoding the image in order to drop the bandwidth enough to send the signal to the headset.
I'm not one for wanting to lower graphics settings, and definately not for dropping the resolution. My 3080Ti is borderline ok, but it's on the edge. To be honest, I don't want to spend £1,600 on a 4090, but I do get annoyed when cars judder on track and that's running at 72. I've tried 90, and it's such a nice improvement but I just can't maintain the fps....and as for flight sim, forget about it. Tried it once, and gave up.
Nvidia also seem to care about VR, adding features like SPS and Fov rendering but the jury is out on those.
The Sim Side: NVIDIA SPS VR Performance in iRacing – Part II
The Conclusion of our Investigation into NVIDIA’s Single Pass Stereo Technology Our first deep-dive into simulation virtual reality (VR) performance attempted to address the question: ... Read more
babeltechreviews.com
Last edited:
Thank you for this.I think it's simply down to pure power, and the fact for those headsets which require conversion (USB/Wifi not Displayport) the encoding is better.
My headset (pico4) native res is 2160x2160 but the way the lenses work requires the GPU to run at 3152x3152, and that's per eye. Basically it's rendering 19.8m pixels compared to regular 4K monitor which is 8.2m so over double. That's a lot of pixels, and you also absolutely have to maintain the headsets fps which is usually either 72fps or 90fps else you end up with a blury mess and sickness. If that wasn't enough, when going over wifi or USB, you are also using the GPU to encoding the image in order to drop the bandwidth enough to send the signal to the headset.
I'm not one for wanting to lower graphics settings, and definately not for dropping the resolution. My 3080Ti is borderline ok, but it's on the edge. To be honest, I don't want to spend £1,600 on a 4090, but I do get annoyed when cars judder on track and that's running at 72. I've tried 90, and it's such a nice improvement but I just can't maintain the fps....and as for flight sim, forget about it. Tried it once, and gave up.
Nvidia also seem to care about VR, adding features like SPS and Fov rendering but the jury is out on those.
The Sim Side: NVIDIA SPS VR Performance in iRacing – Part II
The Conclusion of our Investigation into NVIDIA’s Single Pass Stereo Technology Our first deep-dive into simulation virtual reality (VR) performance attempted to address the question: ... Read more
I'm getting back into pc gaming after a looong break and I am really interested in PCVR gaming.
Initially I'll be using a 6900xt and in the new year I'll be upgrading to a 7900xtx AIB. The VR headset I've ordered is a Vive Pro 2.
Do you suspect any performance issues with those cards paired with a Ryzen 7900cpu?
I am answering both your posts at once. There are a few reasons for this.
One: Power. Nvidia cards perform better in VR.
Two: Drivers. Nvidia's drivers work better in a wider variety of games in VR. (Note this only applies to VR not pancake games where their drivers are fine)
Three: Features. As TheOracle said above, Nvidia seems to have an interest in VR. Things like VRSS and SPS.
AS for your choice of Video card for the Vive Pro 2. I really don't know. At this moment in time I would say no, I wouldn't get the 7900XT, the VR performance is worse than the 6900XT in some cases.
You say you aren't buying until the new year? If I was you, I would hold off as long as possible. But when you are ready to buy, check the driver situation in VR games then. If it's not good, get a Nvidia GPU. Because, believe me, If AMD don't fix a problem within the first few driver releases there is no point waiting. It might months before they get around to it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,715
If it was my money, I wouldn't get the Vive Pro 2. I've got one at work and it's rubbish. You can get (imho) better ones, which are cheaper. Then use the money saved to get either a 4080 or push for a 4090.
I think until the quest3/deckard comes out the best PCVR experience (all things considered) is the Pico4 (with hopefully a vrcovers face cover) and a 4090.
That said, another option (maybe better) would be a Pico 3 neo link paired with a 4080. The lower resolution screens won't require a 4090, plus it has a displayport.
Pros and cons for either route.
Last edited:
Why Pico 4 and not quest pro?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,715
To be honest, I forgot about quest pro. Depends if it's £1,100 better.
You are allowed to return it.
Is it really worth it? I only want the best possible experience for games like Half Life Alyx?
Have you tried VR before?
Nope. Never. Currently in the process of building my first gaming rig since 2007.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,715
Just been playing some automobilista 2 as I want to see if I can move away from iRacing (too expensive, and out dated technology). Really impressed with it, as in iRacing the track always looked like it was suffering from compression, whereas here it looks as good as running through displayport. No sign of compression anywhere.
Running my Pico 4 at native res, in game settings set to high (not ultra)
72hz - 70% GPU Load
90hz - 95% GPU Load (only able to hit 80fps)
I then tried a bit of beat saber to see if I could notice much difference. Yep! Big difference. When running 72 the blocks start to judder when they reach you, whereas at 90 they are smooth as silk
Mmmmm, I really don't want to spend money on a 4090
Running my Pico 4 at native res, in game settings set to high (not ultra)
72hz - 70% GPU Load
90hz - 95% GPU Load (only able to hit 80fps)
I then tried a bit of beat saber to see if I could notice much difference. Yep! Big difference. When running 72 the blocks start to judder when they reach you, whereas at 90 they are smooth as silk
Mmmmm, I really don't want to spend money on a 4090
Last edited:
Then I wouldn't worry about it, any modern headset is going to completely blow you away.
VR is a different medium. There isn't a perfect headset. I know people who have tried the Vive Pro 2 and went back to the Quest 2 but I also know people who think the Vive Pro 2 is the best ever. And the same could be said for most of the newer headsets. A lot of choosing a headset will depend on you, how it fits you, your eye shape, head shape etc. etc. Your preferences and tolerances for different things.
Comfort, Wired or Wireless, FOV, Image clarity, controllers, tracking and price are all things that people look for in a headset. But everyone has different priorities. Some prefer wireless over Image Clarity for example. To me, Wireless Freedom is one of the most important qualities. Been tethered while playing Room scale games like Half Life Alyx, really takes me out of the game.
As you haven't tried VR yet, you won't know what things are important to you. And since it's your first time using a VR headset, I probably would have started with something cheaper and easier to setup. Like The quest 2, Pico 3 neo or Pico 4. They would have been a great intro into VR where you could have discovered what you like/don't like and which factors matter to you without spending a ton of money.
As for Half Life Alyx. It looks amazing on every headset.
Thanks for your reply and helpful advice.
I guess I'll stick with what I have for the meantime. I doubt I'll be able to get it sorted before Christmas anyway.
I've got my build to do over the holidays. Maybe in the new year when I've played around with the 6900xt and the Vive Pro 2 I'll be able to figure it out as to what I like and dislike about VR.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 2,574
Well I've tried a Quest2, a Reverb G2, a Rift-S and an Index and I would say the VP2 is better but it did take a ton of faffing about to get it setup right its very picky.
I've not tried a Varjo Aero or MQPro I would expect their visuals to be better.
Personally I value visuals over wireless by a long margin, full disclosure
Just FYI Varjo is a complete no go with AMD… Nvidia only.
It’s also savagely expensive as the headset doesn’t even come with the base stations it needs to function, let alone controllers. If picking up a Varjo Aero you need to budget for ideally 2x base stations, and a pair of index controllers taking you close to 3k all said and done. If using only for seated sim games you might get away with only one base station (better with 2 though) and you could go without controllers.
I see you already have a pro 2 but obviously if you wanted to sell it then you need to feature in keeping the various other bits of kit to make the aero work.
I used the Pro 2 at a Vr arcade, I was just whelmed… it’s neither amazing nor particularly bad from my experience… other than the Aero I don’t think you’d get a headset that substantially changes your experience though. Pimax Crystal may be worth looking at when it comes out, and there are a few other headsets coming out in 2023 like the Megane X, the Quest 3 and and some new thing from HTC etc so I would pseronally just hold on to what you’ve got for now.
Last edited:
Thanks bud. I think that's what I'll do.
I was running a 3080Ti rig for VR and recently got a 4090.
In PC2 and AMS2, using my HP Reverb G1, my 3080Ti could hold 90fps in day-racing using low-medium settings and medium MSAA. However, night racing required down-sampling and all the cars looked like soft, puffy clouds.
Now, with the 4090, I can max MSAA and all other settings for day racing, but I still have to pull settings back to high, for night racing. (I do *not* need to down-sample resolution any more though!)
Just so I can join lobbies without the need to study time of day, accelerated time, weather etc., I just run on high settings.
Last edited: