Best graphics card for VR

[aoaaron]

Hey, I have a 4670k 8gb RAM GTX 670.

I want to by a rift and start playing VR.

My initial plan was to get a 2080 so I can 4k too. However is a 2080 overkill for VR? Is there a better value for money card I should look into getting first before going straight to the 2080 given my bottleneck being the 4670k? I am planning a new build once intel drop their latest and greatest in November.

 

[FlukeRogi]

Buy the best that you can afford. In any given game, if you have some overhead then you can always use supersampling to improve the image quality a bit. While many VR specific games will try and cater to a moderate spec graphics card, games that have a VR implementation alongside the normal monitor version can often be much more demanding (Project Cars 2, Hellblade, etc).

 

[ArmitageShanks]

There's no such thing as overkill when it comes to VR. You need every bit of power your wallet can afford.

 

[Nasher]

A 2080 is way overkill for VR, the HMDs aren't super high res.

 

[Uncle Petey]

No, but they need a high refresh rate and usually require a good dollop of SS which effectively does make them super high res.

 

[kration]

I was in a similar position with a fairly underpowered cpu, which I've still got.

I got a 1080ti and it's been perfect. A 2080 should be the same. VR needs all the graphics grunt it can get.

I'm holding out on a full system rebuild until the next gen of VR arrives, then I'll see what system specs I need.

But, basically a 4670k will see you through. In fact, I'd hold off from buying Intel's next generation until you see what VR needs. In my view, it's VR that's driving my next system build, not what's fastest of shiniest in CPU/GPU...

 

[DONOHUE07]

On these generation of VR headset, the low resolution and most importantly, the games, VR games currently are not graphically demanding at all, ok there’s LA NOIRE and PROJECT CARS1/2 but those are the expections. Anyone buying an expensive GPU just for current gen VR is wasting money.

When the next gen headset come out, I expect higher resolution and increased game graphics in future titles, then it will be required.

I have said it time and time again on VR articles on here and other places, my 5 yr old r9-290 is still playing every VR game perfectly (haven’t touched the three games I listed above as they will be a step to far for my card).

The notion of ‘you need a high end GPU for VR’ just isn’t true, infact I believe it’s hurting VR sales and the adaptation rate of VR.

I’m basing this on current generation games and hardware limitations of the Rift WMR and Vive (not pro) and my own personal hands on experience with graphics cards I have used. My own r9-290 and rx 570, my brothers 970 and 1050ti, and my friends r9-390x vega56, 1070 and 1080, and supersampling aside on the higher tier cards, in the game I play alone and the multiplayer games we play together, you couldn’t tell which card was playing the game, all games the play the same, and look the same.

 

[ArmitageShanks]

On these generation of VR headset, the low resolution and most importantly, the games, VR games currently are not graphically demanding at all, ok there’s LA NOIRE and PROJECT CARS1/2 but those are the expections. Anyone buying an expensive GPU just for current gen VR is wasting money.

It's not the resolution, it's the refresh rate. Other expections: Fallout 4, DCS, IL-2... Basically any major game that's recently been converted to VR.

Sure you could run them with everything on the very lowest settings and struggle to read text without added SS or rely heavily on ASW if you have a Rift. But why would you want to?

 

[markoboyo11]

On these generation of VR headset, the low resolution and most importantly, the games, VR games currently are not graphically demanding at all, ok there’s LA NOIRE and PROJECT CARS1/2 but those are the expections. Anyone buying an expensive GPU just for current gen VR is wasting money.

When the next gen headset come out, I expect higher resolution and increased game graphics in future titles, then it will be required.

I have said it time and time again on VR articles on here and other places, my 5 yr old r9-290 is still playing every VR game perfectly (haven’t touched the three games I listed above as they will be a step to far for my card).

The notion of ‘you need a high end GPU for VR’ just isn’t true, infact I believe it’s hurting VR sales and the adaptation rate of VR.

I’m basing this on current generation games and hardware limitations of the Rift WMR and Vive (not pro) and my own personal hands on experience with graphics cards I have used. My own r9-290 and rx 570, my brothers 970 and 1050ti, and my friends r9-390x vega56, 1070 and 1080, and supersampling aside on the higher tier cards, in the game I play alone and the multiplayer games we play together, you couldn’t tell which card was playing the game, all games the play the same, and look the same.

Yeh but you can't put supersampling aside because it makes an absolutely massive difference.

So basically you need a fast a gpu as you can possibly afford or you will be looking at very blurry images.

 

[Nasher]

I don't find supersamping really helps all that much with current HMDs, due to the "screen door" effect they have which you can't get rid of and wipes out any sharpness to the image no matter what you try.

Mid range cards are enough. I have less performance problems with VR than I did with 3D vision tbh

 

[Uncle Petey]

While it doesn't solve all the shortcomings of the current gen, I find it makes enough of a difference to make it essential.
Whether it's Google Earth or Assetto, it gets rid of a lot of that wobbly 'heat haze' effect, aliasing sparkles and helps immensely with text.

While you're obviously entitled to your opinion, I think you're in a pretty small minority on this one. I'm guessing you don't play any sim titles?

 

[David230]

Try Vr at the normal scaling level. If you find vr ok at native a 1080ti is more than you need. However I liked to push supersampling for a better overall image and experience and found the 1080ti was forcing ASW. I definitely prefer 90fps solid for racing games especially so had to settle for less than ideal supersampling, for me anyway.

It depends on what you feel happy with and I always felt like I wanted more than a 1080ti so if the 2080ti can make up the difference I will be going that route, personally.

 

[kration]

Just to add to what I said previously, I started in VR with an R9 290, which is at the low end of VR capable cards. However, I was happy with it though I had to turn some graphics settings down.

I came into some cash and splashed some of it on a 1080Ti. The difference was noticeable, but I wouldn't say I was overawed by it. The main thing I did notice was refresh rate in graphics heavy bits of Elite Dangerous - as that's the only game I play regularly in VR. On balance, I'm still happy I got the 1080Ti though.

I'm happy to wait with what I've got at the moment until next gen VR comes out.

Some lower end cards will be perfectly adequate for VR on lower settings. But in my experience the extra grunt of the 1080Ti was worth it. The OP asked about the 'best' card rather than an 'adequate' one, and at the moment VR benefits from the extra power of higher end cards re refresh rate and higher settings. But like a lot of IT stuff it's a bang for buck issue.

 

[SupraWez]

On a Rift you need to drive two screens at 1080 x 1200 at 90FPS each, for the best experience you want to run SS and high detail levels and maintain 90FPS

 

[deuse]

I went from a 1070 to a Titan X pascal and the difference was fantastic on my Vive.

Steam put the SS on 1.0 for my 1070, I raised it to 2.0 and all was ok. Steam put the SS to 2.0 for my titan but I have it on 3.0.

 

[0h_no_not_again]

Buy the best GPU you can afford.

Lower frame times make a huge difference to how much I enjoy VR content. I find that 11ms frames feel different to 5ms frames, especially when it comes to immersion and fooling the subconscious. Also makes me less tired and generally crap feeling afterwards.

Cannot stomach poor frame rates, judder, etx.

Extra SS is also great.

My 2c

 

[DONOHUE07]

Yeh but you can't put supersampling aside because it makes an absolutely massive difference.

So basically you need a fast a gpu as you can possibly afford or you will be looking at very blurry images.

I don’t think it makes too much difference, it’s certainly not night and day.
Like I said before, I couldn’t tell the difference in game on my 290 v my friends 1080 (game was Pavlov btw)

The vast amount of VR games just aren’t graphically demanding right now, until they are buying an expensive GPU just for VR isn’t worth it. I agree with the mantra of buying the best GPU you can afford/budgeted for, if you can afford a top end GPU, then go for it, I just don’t think it’s needed for VR right now, and those that say otherwise could be hurting VR sales as whole right now as it could potentially be putting people off, IMO.

I’ve been saving for ages to upgrade my GPU, and now I have a money put aside, but Ive not encounterd any game, VR or flat that my 290 can’t play comfortably on my 60hz 1080p TV or Rift.
(I don’t mind reduced settings, I’m not into chasing ultra settings or benchmarking anymore)

 

[markoboyo11]

That's where we differ I'm afraid.

I find some games simply unplayable under 1.5 - 2 super sampling.

I think most people agree that the difference with some ss is vast and very welcome because the base resolution is terrible.

 

[DONOHUE07]

That's where we differ I'm afraid.

I find some games simply unplayable under 1.5 - 2 super sampling.

I think most people agree that the difference with some ss is vast and very welcome because the base resolution is terrible.

Agree to disagree!

 

[UgandanWarrior]

Super Sampling matter in my opinion, but there i can see no difference between 1.5-2.0SS.

Your best long term bet is a 1080Ti, but bear in mind single threaded CPU performance is also very important to keep your frametimes low, especially with PVP games.