• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Oculus Fury hdmi Gb's confusion

ToastedChip

ToastedChip

ToastedChip

Associate
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Posts
167
Story so far...

Im looking for a pair of gfx cards to replace my 2x280x's and run the rift CV1 maxed with SS if needed and the following CV2 when its released. Im guessing either 2x Fury X's or 2x 980ti's.

Which brings me to 1 question regarding the Fury X

Will the Fury X with its limited 4gb and hdmi 1.4 be capable of running the second consumer version of the rift ( CV2 ) with possibly 4k across 2 eyes, maybe VRam is a big issue here?
 
Yeeeeah I'd say don't do that just incase. There's no way of knowing but if you buy the offering with the least ram then you have every chance of wasting your cash
 
i am biased also, but i see more value in AMD's LiquidVR.
VR tiitles will need brute compute power, not memory, so 4Go are going to be plenty for the 1st-2nd gen of VR games.
as for Nvidia i smell the closed eco-system for fan milking miles away.
 
Last edited:
AMD have liquid VR but then nvidia also have GameWorksVR:

NVIDIA Multi-Res Shading (MRS) — An innovative new rendering technique for VR. With NVIDIA MRS, each part of an image is rendered at a resolution that better matches the pixel density of the final displayed VR image. This technology uses the multi-projection architecture of the GeForce GTX 980 Ti GPU to render multiple viewports in a single pass. The result: substantial performance improvements for VR games.

VR SLI — Provides increased performance for VR apps. Multiple GPUs can be assigned a specific eye to dramatically accelerate stereo rendering. With the GPU affinity application programming interface, VR SLI allows scaling for PCs with two or more GPUs.

Context Priority — Enables control over GPU scheduling to support advanced VR features such as asynchronous time warp. This cuts latency and quickly adjusts images as gamers move their heads, without the need to re-render a new frame.

Direct Mode — Delivers plug-and-play compatibility for VR headsets. With Direct Mode, the NVIDIA graphics driver recognizes the headset as a VR display rather than a standard desktop monitor, providing a more seamless user experience.

Front Buffer Rendering — Lets the GPU to render directly to the front buffer to reduce latency.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'd wait and see what's best come the time. In fact I'm convinced the Vive will be better than the Oculus anyway and there's more VR headsets on kickstarter and in development as we speak.

By the time one comes out that can truly satisfy requirements we may finally be on a smaller node for GPUs.
 
Throughput, bandwidth, and low latency are what really matter for VR. All areas AMD has NVIDIA beaten at the moment. Also, going CF / SLI, CF has considerably lower frame times than SLI (often half) ... it ought to make a huge difference.
 
Muz333 said:
I'd wait and see what's best come the time. In fact I'm convinced the Vive will be better than the Oculus anyway and there's more VR headsets on kickstarter and in development as we speak.

By the time one comes out that can truly satisfy requirements we may finally be on a smaller node for GPUs.
Click to expand...

Star VR is the only one that looks good so far, to me. Much higher resolution, premium looking and ergonomic headset, and 210 degree FOV.
 
pmc25 said:
Star VR is the only one that looks good so far, to me. Much higher resolution, premium looking and ergonomic headset, and 210 degree FOV.
Click to expand...

The problem being that no game engine supports 210 degree FOV, so actual game support for that headset will be nonexistent unless it is specifically developed for that particular headset

humbug said:
He wants a Liquid VR experience. not a broken one.
Click to expand...

Ironic, considering the only game with actual official support for VR is Elite Dangerous and after all these months there's still no crossfire profile
 
Last edited:
andybird123 said:
The problem being that no game engine supports 210 degree FOV, so actual game support for that headset will be nonexistent unless it is specifically developed for that particular headset
Click to expand...


i Saw on E3 video that Crytek is working on a VR Version of Cryengine, they might add it, who knows!
 
all things been said, especially considering AMDs LACK of driver xfire support in recent years, the 4gb of vRAM on a top end card and hdmi 1.4 im pushing towards nVidia's 980ti's for the first time in 15yrs. Time for a change i think ^_^
 
Well its 4gb of HBM rather than GDDR5 and also i cant see oculus releasing a 4k version without DP input rather than HDMI 2.0. Odd to make your choice before you have seen the Fury X or the new oculus, especially since AMD have been working with them.

Wait and see before pulling the trigger.
 
Possibly wait for the Dual-Fiji card in Autumn maybe (if you can :D ) for VR use?| AMD mentioned in the previous pressers that's what they had in mind for the VR users (although 2 Furies should be in the same ballpark)
 
andybird123 said:
The problem being that no game engine supports 210 degree FOV, so actual game support for that headset will be nonexistent unless it is specifically developed for that particular headset.
Click to expand...

Well not much of VR tech is supported on existing engines (i.e. the versions of them currently out in games now) ... there's nothing stopping it from being added. Though I can't imagine many existing games on the old APIs not imploding with that kind of FOV.

The sad thing is, it's almost inevitable that VR becomes a dirty, bloody war with tons of exclusive games, and disabling / intentional non-support of either mandatory features or USPs of potentially competing headsets.

Though I've no idea what each entails, hopefully LiquidVR / SteamVR (despite Valve producing their own headset with HTC) will try to support or enable the features of all major players.
 
ToastedChip said:
all things been said, especially considering AMDs LACK of driver xfire support in recent years, the 4gb of vRAM on a top end card and hdmi 1.4 im pushing towards nVidia's 980ti's for the first time in 15yrs. Time for a change i think ^_^
Click to expand...

4GB is a total non-issue.

VR pretty much requires DX12 or Vulkan for acceptable performance. CF or SLI profiles are unnecessary as the APIs offer native multi-GPU support -- developers either add support in the game or they don't. It no longer has anything to do with the graphics card vendor.

Moreover, as I said before, latency is the big issue in VR (both frame times and display). CF has much, much lower latency than SLI. This is why you no longer see multi-GPU FCAT testing in reviews ... after it became clear that AMD had improved to an extent where they outright thrashed NVIDIA in frame-times, NVIDIA withdrew permission for reviewers to use the software for that purpose (which they'd written and supplied for the express purpose of showing AMD's former issues). SweClockers posted the last review with CF / SLI FCAT results earlier this year .. there hasn't been another one since.

IMO not supporting HDMI 2.0 was a huge blunder by AMD, as I still doubt the possibility of fully working and latency free DP1.2 -> HDMI2.0 adapters. However I also doubt that DP will be missing from the final version of the Oculus or other PC headsets. First gen. products may not require the bandwidth, however many second gen. products or higher spec first gen products (StarVR) will most require more bandwidth than HDMI2.0 offers - i.e. DP1.3 or SuperMHL. Switching standards entirely between versions would be a bit silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom