Thoughts on next-gen GPUs

Soldato
Joined
21 Apr 2007
Posts
2,544
Whilst the general discussion of next-gen GPUs is well catered for in the Graphics forum I thought I open up a discussion specifically for VR users.

VR but in particular PC VR with high res HMD's has a unique use case which arguably justifies throwing as much GPU horse power as you can at games.

What are you thoughts on next gen RTX 4000 & RDNA3 for VR:
  1. Raw performance at high VR resolutions
  2. Latency issues from the hardware
  3. VR performance and compatibility with drivers
  4. Ray tracing in VR
  5. DLSS and FSR benefits in VR
  6. The dreaded 1% lows
  7. Other benefits from the vendors like Smart Access Memory
  8. Track record
 
I'm quite looking forward to being able to drive my HP G2 at a meaningful resolution and quality setting. Coming from a 1080 which doesn't even have the benefit of DLSS I am hoping for a vast performance bump, mainly hoping MSFS2020 is playable in VR as my 1080 pretty much can't run it at all.

As long as it's a pretty smooth experience, I'm not too fussed about all the numbers really.
 
The reality is that right now, we simply don't know how good the 40 series will be.

Most of the potential benefits that you've listed already exist with the 30 series. Can't say I've been that impressed in MS FS2020. Still runs like a pile of poo unless you dial down the visual dramatically, and that's with DLSS enabled on a 3080ti.

On a more positive note, DCS still looks OK. Just hoping that we'll get DLSS/FSR and Vulkan enabled on the game engine in the next year.

On a related note, the Meta Cambria and the Neo Pico 4 might well bring some interesting capabilities to the table, e.g. eye tracking and the potential for foveated rendering.
 
On a more positive note, DCS still looks OK.
Myself I have mixed feelings in DCS with my 3080. The cockpit looks beautiful but the scenery and terrain is showing its age now, the Apache module just runs too slow or at too heavy compromise on quality settings for my tastes. The other more mature modules run better though I would agree there.
The reality is that right now, we simply don't know how good the 40 series will be.
We basically know the RTX 40 series spec's and that there is going to be a much bigger differentiation between the 80 class and 90 class in terms of compute units this time. We also know N31 relatively is going to have even more cores and has every chance to take the raw rasterization performance crown but historically they are more inconsistent with their framerates. I think what is interesting is you feasibly have a better option in RDNA3 this time round for VR users but obviously no certainty at this stage things could pan out differently.
 
i'm hoping for a 25%+ fps increase for a top end 4000 card over my 3080ti, if it's less then i might not upgrade. it also depends on if i buy another vr headset that demands more gpu power. atm my 3080ti powers my quest 2 pretty well, the exception being msfs, its not terrible but it's not great.
 
Is that all, I normally fall into the 2X (100%) camp myself though VR has admittedly caused me to rethink that. Not sure I would even consider less than 50% tbh
is 100% increase realistic though? did the 3090 double the fps of a 2080ti? i'm not sure...
but yeah maybe 25% is a bit conservative.
 
is 100% increase realistic though? did the 3090 double the fps of a 2080ti? i'm not sure...
but yeah maybe 25% is a bit conservative.
not in a single generation no, for context I went AMD R9 290X > GTX 980Ti > RTX 3080

I think 4090 and N31 are going to be way above +50% of a 3080 but you are having to go up 1 tier/class to get that
 
Been an interesting few days, feasibly some good performance uplift from a 4090 and potentially useful tech to help smoothness in VR although DLSS 3 likely to be useless in VR due to limited support.

Summary of thoughts from another VR enthusiast for anyone that is interested:

Comedy pricing on the 4080 but I'll leave that to the Graphics sub-forum.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom