AMD vs Nvidia - VR edition

[kevman]

This thread has been hijacked by racing games, enjoyable though that is.

But re VR the original question still stands.

I will be building a new system in the new year. The main aim is getting the best experience for my Valve Index and VR games.

AMD seems to be the best bet re. CPU.

There are some benefits about pairing AMD CPU's and the new AMD graphics cards, and that seems like a win-win.

I'm not bothered about ray tracing at the moment as I think that will be next-gen+ especially re VR, and that seems to be Nvidia's selling point.

But the comments about Nvidia and VR have set me thinking. I've got a 1080ti and it has been faultless.

I was going to go all AMD, but are Nvidia GPU's that much better for VR?

https://babeltechreviews.com/vr-war...rtx-3080-15-vr-games-performance-benchmarked/

I dont think there is that much in it TBH - see link above. NV have the slight edge but also seem to still be doing some development for VR (e.g. DLSS). If i did not have a gsync monitor I would have likely gone AMD this time round.

With the AMD cards you need to be a bit careful with the connectors on the back.

I run 2 monitors DP plus the index DP and I dont think any of the new cards from AMD have 3 DP ports. I have also seen some of the AIBs have 2DP and 2 HDMI so just make sure it suits your reqs.

 

[danswan]

So I managed to snag a 3080FE in today's drop. I know last drop there were problems with over-ordering so could be a further wait, but if not, there's a decent chance I will be getting the G2 and the 3080 on the same day, or close enough. All I need now is for the 5900X to suddenly become available for the full house.

Looking forward to comparing to the 5700XT, I'm expecting great things.

 

[danlightbulb]

So I managed to snag a 3080FE in today's drop. I know last drop there were problems with over-ordering so could be a further wait, but if not, there's a decent chance I will be getting the G2 and the 3080 on the same day, or close enough. All I need now is for the 5900X to suddenly become available for the full house.

Looking forward to comparing to the 5700XT, I'm expecting great things.

Nice one. I went for the 3070 FE and got one. Will be big upgrade from my RX480 hopefully I can bump some resolution settings up now in link.

 

[danlightbulb]

Thought this may be of interest:

old RX480 score on Steam VR performance test:





And now the new 3070:





However i have to say, in Air Car running over VD, I still can't push pixel density to 1.0 otherwise I cant get 72 fps. (VD on medium, 80 bitrate).

 

[danswan]

Thought this may be of interest:

old RX480 score on Steam VR performance test:





And now the new 3070:





However i have to say, in Air Car running over VD, I still can't push pixel density to 1.0 otherwise I cant get 72 fps. (VD on medium, 80 bitrate).

Nice idea, just what we need in this thread. This is what I get on the steam test and the open VR test for my 5700XT. 3080 arrives tomorrow, so will be interesting to see a comparison

 

[danlightbulb]

I got 33 on the open VR benchmark. I think the steam tool is easily pleased, you'll get the same as me on a 3080 without doubt, highest the software can go.

Just been playing asgards wrath over VD. Medium settings on VD and in game, 72fps is held no problems. About 50% GPU utilisation so may be able to push it higher.

 

[melmac]

The Steam VR test isn't really very good. It's only for lowest baseline of performance.

 

[danswan]

The Steam VR test isn't really very good. It's only for lowest baseline of performance.

Noted. I'll ignore that with the new 3080 then. The OpenVR benchmark is way over double the 5700XT's score though:



Had a brief play on some games yesterday, RDR2 allowed me to push the settings much higher but honestly it looks so good anyway it's hard to tell the difference.

in VR I only really tried Asssetto Corsa with the SOL Mod and I was able to hold the Quest's forgiving 72hz no matter what settings I threw at it, which is definitely a big improvement. Today I'm going to try ACC again, having given up trying in VR with the 5700XT. Also downloaded Control to see what Raytracing/DLSS looks like And still the G2 to come, hopefully on Tuesday all being well

 

[lokiss]

You might be interested in this video as you're on a 3700X. He only does I racing, but it's got me considering rebuilding my system over to AMD once the top end cpu become more available.

I thought id join the fun and do the Cyuber benchmark. It's actually a fun game too if anybody is interested, the developer is super invested in it.

 

[danswan]

You might be interested in this video as you're on a 3700X. He only does I racing, but it's got me considering rebuilding my system over to AMD once the top end cpu become more available.

Wow thanks. I'm also in the market for a CPU upgrade, got the funds ready for a 5900X when it's possile to get hold of one. Mostly I was thinking it would future-proof me a bit as after this raft of upgrades I'm not planning on making any big purchases for some time. I wasn't thinking I'd be seeing such an improvement, but that is a big difference. Can't wait to get hold of a new CPU now

 

[danlightbulb]

Noted. I'll ignore that with the new 3080 then. The OpenVR benchmark is way over double the 5700XT's score though:



Had a brief play on some games yesterday, RDR2 allowed me to push the settings much higher but honestly it looks so good anyway it's hard to tell the difference.

in VR I only really tried Asssetto Corsa with the SOL Mod and I was able to hold the Quest's forgiving 72hz no matter what settings I threw at it, which is definitely a big improvement. Today I'm going to try ACC again, having given up trying in VR with the 5700XT. Also downloaded Control to see what Raytracing/DLSS looks like And still the G2 to come, hopefully on Tuesday all being well

Here's my result but I don't get a couple of things:

1. My rendering resolution is lower than yours. Have you set either link or steam VR to display a higher resolution? Or are you running this over VD?
2. You got 63 fps on a 3080, I got 54 on a 3070. That seems about right (give or take the resolution difference) but it says mine is below average for my GPU/headset config. That's odd.

 

[danswan]

It popped up with a message that my Supersampling needed to be reset when I ran it, and I said yes. I assumed that was the default resolution for a quest, but it seems it should be 1440 X 1600. Steam VR seems to be doing some weird stuff with res - I'm on a G2 Facebook group and it seems that due to a bug, you need to set Steam resolution to around 50% to get it to render in the correct res for the G2.

Just had another go there, 100% is giving me 1808 x 2000, which is clearly wrong. Closest I can get it is 64%, which is 1444 x 1600. I have to ignore the message from the benchmark that I should set Supersampling to 100%, or it resets. Not sure what's going on tbh

 

[danlightbulb]

It is the Oculus link software that sets the rendering resolution and framerate in the benchmark. This means that if we're comparing settings we have to be mindful of the Link settings.

Here is a series of tests on my hardware. The performance is clearly dependent on resolution and not refresh rate at all, which is interesting. I assume this is because it doesn't matter what the refresh rate is set to in my case, as the GPU is not reaching it at these tested resolutions.



Native resolution on the Quest 2 is about 7 million pixels, so Im getting around 50 fps average at that resolution on the benchmark (reading off my chart).

Note that the 'auto' setting on link, is lower resolution if you select a higher refresh rate. That's why the first three points on my chart are spaced out. The next two tested resolutions were the same at each refresh rate (but higher multipliers shown on the slider).

'4K' is about 8.3 million pixels, so some of the higher link resolutions are well beyond 4K. I stopped at 4464x2256 but it goes higher still. At its highest its 50% more pixels than 4K.

 

[danswan]

It is the Oculus link software that sets the rendering resolution and framerate in the benchmark. This means that if we're comparing settings we have to be mindful of the Link settings.

Here is a series of tests on my hardware. The performance is clearly dependent on resolution and not refresh rate at all, which is interesting. I assume this is because it doesn't matter what the refresh rate is set to in my case, as the GPU is not reaching it at these tested resolutions.



Native resolution on the Quest 2 is about 7 million pixels, so Im getting around 50 fps average at that resolution on the benchmark (reading off my chart).

Note that the 'auto' setting on link, is lower resolution if you select a higher refresh rate. That's why the first three points on my chart are spaced out. The next two tested resolutions were the same at each refresh rate (but higher multipliers shown on the slider).

'4K' is about 8.3 million pixels, so some of the higher link resolutions are well beyond 4K. I stopped at 4464x2256 but it goes higher still. At its highest its 50% more pixels than 4K.

That could explain it I guess, in the oculus debug tool I could have something funky going on. Will have another look tomorrow

 

[danswan]

It is the Oculus link software that sets the rendering resolution and framerate in the benchmark. This means that if we're comparing settings we have to be mindful of the Link settings.

Here is a series of tests on my hardware. The performance is clearly dependent on resolution and not refresh rate at all, which is interesting. I assume this is because it doesn't matter what the refresh rate is set to in my case, as the GPU is not reaching it at these tested resolutions.



Native resolution on the Quest 2 is about 7 million pixels, so Im getting around 50 fps average at that resolution on the benchmark (reading off my chart).

Note that the 'auto' setting on link, is lower resolution if you select a higher refresh rate. That's why the first three points on my chart are spaced out. The next two tested resolutions were the same at each refresh rate (but higher multipliers shown on the slider).

'4K' is about 8.3 million pixels, so some of the higher link resolutions are well beyond 4K. I stopped at 4464x2256 but it goes higher still. At its highest its 50% more pixels than 4K.

Sorry not sure what the link Slider is? I've used the debug tool to increase pixel density before, but not used a slider? Also I presume this is the Quest 2 you are using? I'm still on the quest 1, so a lower resolution

 

[danlightbulb]

Sorry not sure what the link Slider is? I've used the debug tool to increase pixel density before, but not used a slider? Also I presume this is the Quest 2 you are using? I'm still on the quest 1, so a lower resolution

Oh im not sure if you get the slider on a Quest 1? Its in the Link software itself now, on the latest version. When you select your headset there are options for changing the resolution.

 

[danswan]

Oh im not sure if you get the slider on a Quest 1? Its in the Link software itself now, on the latest version. When you select your headset there are options for changing the resolution.

I don't get any of that, unless there's something I'm missing. Not too bothered anyway as the Quest will be unused as of tomorrow when the G2 arrives. And will be replaced with a Quest 2 before Christmas

 

[Zeeflyboy]

I’ve basically decided whoever can offer me an msrp FE/MBA card first will get my cash this time.

6800XT reference or 3080FE... either will be a dramatic step up from my 2070S

 

[danswan]

I’ve basically decided whoever can offer me an msrp FE/MBA card first will get my cash this time.

6800XT reference or 3080FE... either will be a dramatic step up from my 2070S

Very similar to what I've done going from 5700XT to 3080FE. Would have happily grabbed a 6800XT had one been forthcoming. Was such a relief to turn off the discord notifications after snagging the FE - but have just turned them on for the 5900X now haha

 

[Zeeflyboy]

but have just turned them on for the 5900X now haha

you’re a glutton for punishment!