In regard to the laptops, does that mean that systems like the MSI GT72 will work? I know the GT72 doesn't have Optimus but rather a physical GPU switch.
The CPU requirement is an i5-4590. That is pretty hefty CPU requirement that I don't think any laptops meet. And the GPU is a desktop GTX 970+ or R9 290+ both of which require more watts than most laptops as a whole.
AFAIK,less than 15 laptop models have meet this spec,counting optimus ones, not considering post-factory upgrade and externel gpu (and 970m). And, if hardware switch for iGPU does not count, only Clevo's beasts would be supported.(namely P750ZM,maybe P370SMA) I doubt this situation would change in foreseenable future. (Unless OR is a very very big success..)
I was doing 4k with 970M playable so I think a 980m can do it. People who never used a 970M think it's bad but it's not. The quality of 4k with playable fps seems to be the same awesome as 144fps on 1080p. I wouldn't say one is better than the other because they are both different but 4k with lower fps doesn't seem dreadful as the photorealism on Project Cars and Dota 2 out weigh the pixels of 1080p.
"HDMI 1.3 video output supporting a 297MHz clock via a direct output architecture
The last bullet point is tricky: many discrete GPU laptops have their external video output connected to the integrated GPU and drive the external output via hardware and software mechanisms that can’t support the Rift. Since this isn’t something that can be determined by reading the specs of a laptop, we are working on how to identify the right systems. Note that almost no current laptops have the GPU performance for the recommended spec, though upcoming mobile GPUs may be able to support this level of performance."
No it doesn't make any sense to cripple PC gaming like that. Constantly pushing the upper limits is a fundamental thing for PC gaming. And they really don't want to define "lifetime"either, it's just bad business. If monitor makers would come up with such an utterly idiotic idea how great would that be? Oculus is just a monitor, maybe an inch smarter than other monitors but still just that. They sell out to FB, they add external hardware, now they want to degrade PC gaming (like being flooded with console ports was bad enough). When do we see some positive/reasonable moves? Guess 2160x1200 is not a bad decision ,was expecting them to aim higher and make GPU requirements rather tough on wallets.
"Constantly pushing the upper limits is a fundamental thing for PC gaming."
I agree but I'm not sure why you think this announcement says otherwise. What they've announced are essentially the lower limits...not the upper limits. PC games have always had lower limits as well, it is just that Oculus's announced lower limits are actually higher than usual.
2160x1200 makes sense for a first generation. 4K would be sweet but very few(any?) can drive 4K at 90hz due to the lack of Displayport 1.3 hardware.
2560x1440 would make more sense, and it does not require DP 1.3. Keep in mind, these specs are for hardware you will buy one year from now. Which means a new generation of CPUs/GPUs will probably be out by that time.
Unless the upper limit is fixed their statement is empty and pointless. If you can't run the new game at max quality, what's the point really? New games further and further bellow max quality? If the lower limit is fixed then their claim is rather misleading and it still holds games back. As for the res, i was actually saying that it was a good decision.Was expecting 1440p, hoping for less and afraid of 4k. Would have been even better to have multiple versions with diff res and price points but for a first gen of a new tech it's easier with a single SKU. Just some 15 mins ago i was checking out this graph with 5 inch 1080p panel prices http://www.displaysearch.com/images/Research/15051... Given that , a 1080p Oculus with a 5.5 inch display could have really been cheap.A lesser experience but accessible to a much wider audience. In the end this is just a new form factor for displays and hopefully we get some standards and vast and diverse hardware ecosystem. That's always more fun than a monopoly.
Here the quote: "The recommended spec will stay constant over the lifetime of the Rift. As the equivalent-performance hardware becomes less expensive, more users will have systems capable of the full Rift experience. Developers, in turn, can rely on Rift users having these modern machines, allowing them to optimize their game for a known target, simplifying development.?
So they clearly want devs to go for a fixed target instead of pushing forward and anyone that does that would have little to no reason to spend money and aim higher. This feels less about the user and more about creating artificial refresh cycles.They decide the lifetime is 2 years and force everybody to upgrade to slightly better hardware if they want to play new games.If they own the software they can just not support new games on older Oculus hardware even if the user would be ok with that. Another weird issue with their statement is ,If the lifetime is X years does it keep shrinking as time goes by? What do you do with ppl that buy 1 year ( or 2 weeks) before the lifetime ends? They should just take back that statement , we all know how gaming works and how fast GPUs get outdated, not a difficult concept and no need to reinvent the wheel. Hell, for a young technology, trying to hold it back artificially like this is almost certainly a really bad idea. Early on there are often significant developments and not taking advantage of those harms the user and can give their competition a chance to get ahead.
Your view is extremely myopic. When creating new medium it is not necessarily out spec every single parameter. LCDs response time and dynamic range were(are) lower than CRTs, wi-fi is slower than wired connection, smartphones are slower than laptops. It is a new(ish) medium that is still in its infancy and limited by current technology and biology.
So to expect a neck to neck resolution comparison with desktop LCD is missing the point.
For PC gaming, I think you'll probably be better off with the HTC/Valve VR system, so don't worry too much about Oculus asking devs to target baseline specs. Let the Oculus store do this, and Valve can push the boundaries with higher-end GPUs.
I won't be surprised if Oculus has better telepresence capability than Valve does though. I have Gear VR (S6) and the geometry and head-tracking seem perfect to me in almost every app and game. I'm impressed with what they've accomplished. I hope the HTC system is just as good, but it might not be.
Previous VR systems I've tried warped the virtual world around you somewhat like thick glasses do, and lagged in head-tracking. Oculus VR does not have these shortcomings.
I think VR is going to be big. I don't usually bring my toys to work, but I did with this one because it's so amazing, and my team was blown away by the technology.
Gear VR is still considered an "explorer edition" The shortcomings that make it not ready for the general consumer are overheating and insufficient pixel density. Standing or sitting under a fan solves the heat problem, but these things aren't going to be perfect until they move to 4K+ displays.
I am not a fan at all of sticking phones into a frame like Gear VR,especially when an Oculus like device can be very cheap. You mentioning Gear VR reminded me that Google IO is in a couple of weeks and maybe they have some news on the glasses front too. I do see glasses (VR converging with AR) as the next form factor so excited too, just wish things were moving faster and the execution would be better.
>I am not a fan at all of sticking phones into a frame like Gear VR
Why? I love that I can repurpose the expensive display and processor in my phone as a VR display. It's not like I can use my phone at the same time I'm in VR. This is an Oculus device, and you're not going to beat $200. The shortcoming of Gear opposed to the PC device is that you can't play PC games, but it's spectacular and will keep me entertained with excellent VR until the HTC/Valve headset is released.
Look at Microsoft HoloLens. It's what Glass should have been, but their current prototype has a crappy field of view. I'm hoping reviewer pushback leads them to fix that before release.
LOL its not even out yet and you already want 4k? lol By the time we get 4k there will be 8k displays and you'll say they aren't perfect until we get 8k. Can anything ever be perfect?
Because of how close the screens are to your eyes, there is a sweet spot you need to pass in order for image quality to match what we're used to via desktop (pixel size, etc). And that is routinely considered too be 4k for VR. At the same time, however, they need to solve the screen door effect, which becomes even more of an issue the higher res you go.
But still, 4k is likely the sweet spot for "good enough", whereas anything below this is likely to feel inferior to what we currently enjoy on desktop, even 1440p (probably).
Yeah I don't think that resolution will be the limiting factor in VR adpotion. Sure, the current VR implementations all have displays that will make images look quite pixellated, but a much greater headache (literally) is the ~90Hz refresh rate target for a fully immersive substituted reality.
Even if they do get head-tracking latency under control, the jerkiness of full-vield video at those frame rates (even without any inter-frame or inter-eye variance) would be more than enough to ruin the experience for consumers like me (who find that tracking the motion portrayed by "moving" pictures at those low frame rates is extremely difficult and quickly induces quite severe motion-sickness).
Today's VR hardware reminds me a lot of the failed push towards 3D media consumption. 3D-TV didn't just fail because consumers disliked having to wear the 3D-Glasses, a major reason why it failed was that engineering short-cuts reaulted in a product that was unable to deliver any real, robust improvement over its predecessor. Secondly, the extremely low frame rate that movies absolutely have to be captured in, exacerbated the technological limitations of 3D-videos and also induced the familiar symptoms of motion-sickness in a substantial number of comsumers.
I, too, was extremely excited by the prospects of a true VR system; however, it now seems that only those who can experience the illusion of real-life motion at 'practical' frame rates will be able to use it without becomming totally disorientated.
I hope AnandTech continues to cover VR headsets. I'm very much looking forward to an AnandTech review of the HTC Vive and eventually the Oculus Rift (consumer version).
welp, I need a new GPU, but that is hardly a surprise. My 570 keeps up with games quite well from a processing perspective, but it simply does not have enough RAM on board for big titles and lots of effects. Maybe I'll spring for a 980 when I get a real job again... At least the rest of my system is ready and up to the task!
I'm amused at how people in the comments on Oculus' site are complaining about the lack of Mac support at launch. Did they read the recommended specs? Only the Mac Pro with the top-end "D700" (aka Firepro W9000) GPU option, starting at $4000, has the horsepower and even then it's not by much.
I'm a pretty big cross-platform guy, but when the Mac gaming market is a niche to begin with and only a small subset of those users actually have enough hardware to run it properly it's hard to blame them for not prioritizing the platform. I'd be willing to bet that there are more Linux gamers than there are Mac gamers who own a high-end Mac Pro.
I meet the and exceed the requirements but wanted them to aim lower. It reads like Crysis to me. The first series of games will have a minimum level of performance, just enough to keep up while the computer is delivering it's maximum load/performance. I'll question Rift's compatibility with steam boxes, Good-Better-Best = No Rift-No Rift-Rift.
GTX 970/R9 290 powering the equivalent of 3x 1080p at a *minimum* of 90fps? My guess is that quality settings are going to need to take a big hit, but hopefully the sense of presence will compensate for that.
Also, we're going to need DX12 and Vulkan pretty quickly - often the biggest challenge in maintaining a locked frame-rate comes from CPU/DX11 bottlenecks.
On the plus side, it's great that there's a min-spec out there that developers need to target to hit a certain frame-rate. It should hopefully help the entire game design.
Yeah, in anandtech's 970 review it struggled to maintain a 90fps average(!) at 1080p even for the AAA games of 2013/14. Those tests were at max settings and all, but I can't see myself skimping on the anti-aliasing when the screen is pressed to my eyeballs. And the minimum fps isn't often much better than half the average. Oculus seems optimistic.
I thought that the Oculus was going to be released this coming winter sometime. With Intel's SkyLake scheduled for October and nVidia's Pascal just around the corner as well, I don't think there will be any problem getting a system over the hump for these guys — even laptops.
No surprises here. I learned from the first gen OR that you need to over-spec to ensure zero issues. I quickly bought a gtx770 as a result to ensure over-kill and it's now equivalent to the 960 they're saying is their minimum spec. Unlike our experience with the specs recommended for "normal" games, I'm prepared to bet this spec will give a good experience. They know how easy it is to kill the illusion.
This roll-out has now dragged on but it appears they're done good work on efficiency. The consumer version will have much higher res than the early dev units so the GPU grunt to power those pixels with zero issues is higher.
Incidentally, I wonder how SLI/X-fire will go? It's the natural route for a lot of people to juice up their specs, especially for mid range cards that don't suck much power.
Minimum specifications. that's what they have listed. the min. system specs for devs to aim at when making games; so you can offer a playable VR game to mass market, if it is at low quality settings, so be it, if you want to run Crysis 5 on Oculus you can do so with your GTX 970 at low quality settings, but if you want very high, you'll need two Geforce GTX next-gen in SLI...
that's how it has always been with gaming, difference here is that they are launching a platform, not just VR goggles, because hardware peripheral without software to back it, is worthless.
that's where timewarp comes into play, trying to even out the low FPS dips, so you don't really need to have 90fps min at all times, a few dips here and there will be smoothed out with timewarp
but you still need a lot of horse power, with DK2 and GTX 970 , AAA titles run with medium-high quality settings without issue (Alien Isolation, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars, ...), less GFX prone games run amazingly well, the unreal and unity engines are very flexible to allow image quality to be dynamically adapted to match hardware specs and targeted fps
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
Back to Article
Aikouka - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
In regard to the laptops, does that mean that systems like the MSI GT72 will work? I know the GT72 doesn't have Optimus but rather a physical GPU switch.eanazag - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
The CPU requirement is an i5-4590. That is pretty hefty CPU requirement that I don't think any laptops meet.And the GPU is a desktop GTX 970+ or R9 290+ both of which require more watts than most laptops as a whole.
Your laptop would be smoking hot if it could.
testbug00 - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
Sounds about right. A 980m and 57W mobile i7 might be able to. Might.edwd2 - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
any laptop with an i7-4800MQ / Xeon E3-1230 v3 or i5-4590 and GTX 980M or 965-980M SLI or higher will meet those requirements.hyno111 - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
AFAIK,less than 15 laptop models have meet this spec,counting optimus ones, not considering post-factory upgrade and externel gpu (and 970m). And, if hardware switch for iGPU does not count, only Clevo's beasts would be supported.(namely P750ZM,maybe P370SMA) I doubt this situation would change in foreseenable future. (Unless OR is a very very big success..)Meaker10 - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
All current MSI GT models have direct output via the display connectors (only the internal panel/VGA is driven through optimus if it has it).Samus - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
What current laptops are shipping with a Xeon?Flunk - Sunday, May 17, 2015 - link
Eurocom Panther, I think it's a Clevo of some sort but I'm not sure which.http://www.eurocom.com/ec/configure%281,224,0%29ec
AntDX316 - Monday, October 26, 2015 - link
nah, you dont need SLI I thinkpeople who are from desktop think you need 980M sli to be like 1 980 GTX to have good frame rate
I had 970M at 4k and Project Cars can do it on Ultra with really playable frame rate
other games can 4k like Dota 2 but FPS games require 1080p otherwise there is a bit of mouse lag
angrybaker - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
What about the Clevo P750ZM? Doesn't it use a desktop i7-4790K and 980M without Optimus?AntDX316 - Monday, October 26, 2015 - link
I was doing 4k with 970M playable so I think a 980m can do it. People who never used a 970M think it's bad but it's not. The quality of 4k with playable fps seems to be the same awesome as 144fps on 1080p. I wouldn't say one is better than the other because they are both different but 4k with lower fps doesn't seem dreadful as the photorealism on Project Cars and Dota 2 out weigh the pixels of 1080p.MegaHustler - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
Regarding laptops, Oculus has this comment on their page ( https://www.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/ ):"HDMI 1.3 video output supporting a 297MHz clock via a direct output architecture
The last bullet point is tricky: many discrete GPU laptops have their external video output connected to the integrated GPU and drive the external output via hardware and software mechanisms that can’t support the Rift. Since this isn’t something that can be determined by reading the specs of a laptop, we are working on how to identify the right systems. Note that almost no current laptops have the GPU performance for the recommended spec, though upcoming mobile GPUs may be able to support this level of performance."
jjj - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
No it doesn't make any sense to cripple PC gaming like that. Constantly pushing the upper limits is a fundamental thing for PC gaming. And they really don't want to define "lifetime"either, it's just bad business.If monitor makers would come up with such an utterly idiotic idea how great would that be? Oculus is just a monitor, maybe an inch smarter than other monitors but still just that.
They sell out to FB, they add external hardware, now they want to degrade PC gaming (like being flooded with console ports was bad enough). When do we see some positive/reasonable moves? Guess 2160x1200 is not a bad decision ,was expecting them to aim higher and make GPU requirements rather tough on wallets.
dalingrin - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
"Constantly pushing the upper limits is a fundamental thing for PC gaming."I agree but I'm not sure why you think this announcement says otherwise. What they've announced are essentially the lower limits...not the upper limits. PC games have always had lower limits as well, it is just that Oculus's announced lower limits are actually higher than usual.
2160x1200 makes sense for a first generation. 4K would be sweet but very few(any?) can drive 4K at 90hz due to the lack of Displayport 1.3 hardware.
p1esk - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
2560x1440 would make more sense, and it does not require DP 1.3. Keep in mind, these specs are for hardware you will buy one year from now. Which means a new generation of CPUs/GPUs will probably be out by that time.jjj - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
Unless the upper limit is fixed their statement is empty and pointless. If you can't run the new game at max quality, what's the point really? New games further and further bellow max quality? If the lower limit is fixed then their claim is rather misleading and it still holds games back.As for the res, i was actually saying that it was a good decision.Was expecting 1440p, hoping for less and afraid of 4k. Would have been even better to have multiple versions with diff res and price points but for a first gen of a new tech it's easier with a single SKU. Just some 15 mins ago i was checking out this graph with 5 inch 1080p panel prices http://www.displaysearch.com/images/Research/15051... Given that , a 1080p Oculus with a 5.5 inch display could have really been cheap.A lesser experience but accessible to a much wider audience.
In the end this is just a new form factor for displays and hopefully we get some standards and vast and diverse hardware ecosystem. That's always more fun than a monopoly.
jjj - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
Here the quote:"The recommended spec will stay constant over the lifetime of the Rift. As the equivalent-performance hardware becomes less expensive, more users will have systems capable of the full Rift experience. Developers, in turn, can rely on Rift users having these modern machines, allowing them to optimize their game for a known target, simplifying development.?
So they clearly want devs to go for a fixed target instead of pushing forward and anyone that does that would have little to no reason to spend money and aim higher.
This feels less about the user and more about creating artificial refresh cycles.They decide the lifetime is 2 years and force everybody to upgrade to slightly better hardware if they want to play new games.If they own the software they can just not support new games on older Oculus hardware even if the user would be ok with that.
Another weird issue with their statement is ,If the lifetime is X years does it keep shrinking as time goes by? What do you do with ppl that buy 1 year ( or 2 weeks) before the lifetime ends?
They should just take back that statement , we all know how gaming works and how fast GPUs get outdated, not a difficult concept and no need to reinvent the wheel.
Hell, for a young technology, trying to hold it back artificially like this is almost certainly a really bad idea. Early on there are often significant developments and not taking advantage of those harms the user and can give their competition a chance to get ahead.
crimsonson - Sunday, May 17, 2015 - link
Your view is extremely myopic. When creating new medium it is not necessarily out spec every single parameter. LCDs response time and dynamic range were(are) lower than CRTs, wi-fi is slower than wired connection, smartphones are slower than laptops. It is a new(ish) medium that is still in its infancy and limited by current technology and biology.So to expect a neck to neck resolution comparison with desktop LCD is missing the point.
JeffFlanagan - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
For PC gaming, I think you'll probably be better off with the HTC/Valve VR system, so don't worry too much about Oculus asking devs to target baseline specs. Let the Oculus store do this, and Valve can push the boundaries with higher-end GPUs.I won't be surprised if Oculus has better telepresence capability than Valve does though. I have Gear VR (S6) and the geometry and head-tracking seem perfect to me in almost every app and game. I'm impressed with what they've accomplished. I hope the HTC system is just as good, but it might not be.
Previous VR systems I've tried warped the virtual world around you somewhat like thick glasses do, and lagged in head-tracking. Oculus VR does not have these shortcomings.
I think VR is going to be big. I don't usually bring my toys to work, but I did with this one because it's so amazing, and my team was blown away by the technology.
Gear VR is still considered an "explorer edition" The shortcomings that make it not ready for the general consumer are overheating and insufficient pixel density. Standing or sitting under a fan solves the heat problem, but these things aren't going to be perfect until they move to 4K+ displays.
jjj - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
I am not a fan at all of sticking phones into a frame like Gear VR,especially when an Oculus like device can be very cheap. You mentioning Gear VR reminded me that Google IO is in a couple of weeks and maybe they have some news on the glasses front too.I do see glasses (VR converging with AR) as the next form factor so excited too, just wish things were moving faster and the execution would be better.
JeffFlanagan - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
>I am not a fan at all of sticking phones into a frame like Gear VRWhy? I love that I can repurpose the expensive display and processor in my phone as a VR display. It's not like I can use my phone at the same time I'm in VR. This is an Oculus device, and you're not going to beat $200. The shortcoming of Gear opposed to the PC device is that you can't play PC games, but it's spectacular and will keep me entertained with excellent VR until the HTC/Valve headset is released.
Look at Microsoft HoloLens. It's what Glass should have been, but their current prototype has a crappy field of view. I'm hoping reviewer pushback leads them to fix that before release.
piiman - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
LOL its not even out yet and you already want 4k? lol By the time we get 4k there will be 8k displays and you'll say they aren't perfect until we get 8k. Can anything ever be perfect?james.jwb - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
Because of how close the screens are to your eyes, there is a sweet spot you need to pass in order for image quality to match what we're used to via desktop (pixel size, etc). And that is routinely considered too be 4k for VR. At the same time, however, they need to solve the screen door effect, which becomes even more of an issue the higher res you go.But still, 4k is likely the sweet spot for "good enough", whereas anything below this is likely to feel inferior to what we currently enjoy on desktop, even 1440p (probably).
JeffFlanagan - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
You don't understand how huge the pixels are in an under 4K display that fills your field of view. It's worse than sitting close to an NTSC TV.Low-Res VR is still amazing, but a 4K+ display will allow a life-like experience. Current VR is really cool, but it's going to get a lot better.
Xenonite - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
Yeah I don't think that resolution will be the limiting factor in VR adpotion. Sure, the current VR implementations all have displays that will make images look quite pixellated, but a much greater headache (literally) is the ~90Hz refresh rate target for a fully immersive substituted reality.Even if they do get head-tracking latency under control, the jerkiness of full-vield video at those frame rates (even without any inter-frame or inter-eye variance) would be more than enough to ruin the experience for consumers like me (who find that tracking the motion portrayed by "moving" pictures at those low frame rates is extremely difficult and quickly induces quite severe motion-sickness).
Today's VR hardware reminds me a lot of the failed push towards 3D media consumption. 3D-TV didn't just fail because consumers disliked having to wear the 3D-Glasses, a major reason why it failed was that engineering short-cuts reaulted in a product that was unable to deliver any real, robust improvement over its predecessor. Secondly, the extremely low frame rate that movies absolutely have to be captured in, exacerbated the technological limitations of 3D-videos and also induced the familiar symptoms of motion-sickness in a substantial number of comsumers.
I, too, was extremely excited by the prospects of a true VR system; however, it now seems that only those who can experience the illusion of real-life motion at 'practical' frame rates will be able to use it without becomming totally disorientated.
ThortonBe - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
I hope AnandTech continues to cover VR headsets. I'm very much looking forward to an AnandTech review of the HTC Vive and eventually the Oculus Rift (consumer version).CaedenV - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
welp, I need a new GPU, but that is hardly a surprise. My 570 keeps up with games quite well from a processing perspective, but it simply does not have enough RAM on board for big titles and lots of effects. Maybe I'll spring for a 980 when I get a real job again...At least the rest of my system is ready and up to the task!
wolrah - Friday, May 15, 2015 - link
I'm amused at how people in the comments on Oculus' site are complaining about the lack of Mac support at launch. Did they read the recommended specs? Only the Mac Pro with the top-end "D700" (aka Firepro W9000) GPU option, starting at $4000, has the horsepower and even then it's not by much.I'm a pretty big cross-platform guy, but when the Mac gaming market is a niche to begin with and only a small subset of those users actually have enough hardware to run it properly it's hard to blame them for not prioritizing the platform. I'd be willing to bet that there are more Linux gamers than there are Mac gamers who own a high-end Mac Pro.
nutternatter34 - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
I meet the and exceed the requirements but wanted them to aim lower. It reads like Crysis to me.The first series of games will have a minimum level of performance, just enough to keep up while the computer is delivering it's maximum load/performance. I'll question Rift's compatibility with steam boxes, Good-Better-Best = No Rift-No Rift-Rift.
OrphanageExplosion - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
GTX 970/R9 290 powering the equivalent of 3x 1080p at a *minimum* of 90fps? My guess is that quality settings are going to need to take a big hit, but hopefully the sense of presence will compensate for that.Also, we're going to need DX12 and Vulkan pretty quickly - often the biggest challenge in maintaining a locked frame-rate comes from CPU/DX11 bottlenecks.
On the plus side, it's great that there's a min-spec out there that developers need to target to hit a certain frame-rate. It should hopefully help the entire game design.
Timbrelaine - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
Yeah, in anandtech's 970 review it struggled to maintain a 90fps average(!) at 1080p even for the AAA games of 2013/14. Those tests were at max settings and all, but I can't see myself skimping on the anti-aliasing when the screen is pressed to my eyeballs. And the minimum fps isn't often much better than half the average. Oculus seems optimistic.nmm - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
I thought that the Oculus was going to be released this coming winter sometime. With Intel's SkyLake scheduled for October and nVidia's Pascal just around the corner as well, I don't think there will be any problem getting a system over the hump for these guys — even laptops.John in Brisbane - Saturday, May 16, 2015 - link
No surprises here. I learned from the first gen OR that you need to over-spec to ensure zero issues. I quickly bought a gtx770 as a result to ensure over-kill and it's now equivalent to the 960 they're saying is their minimum spec. Unlike our experience with the specs recommended for "normal" games, I'm prepared to bet this spec will give a good experience. They know how easy it is to kill the illusion.This roll-out has now dragged on but it appears they're done good work on efficiency. The consumer version will have much higher res than the early dev units so the GPU grunt to power those pixels with zero issues is higher.
Incidentally, I wonder how SLI/X-fire will go? It's the natural route for a lot of people to juice up their specs, especially for mid range cards that don't suck much power.
ol1bit - Sunday, May 17, 2015 - link
No mention of VHTC and Steam?http://store.steampowered.com/universe/vr/
SydneyBlue120d - Sunday, May 17, 2015 - link
Can You clarify HDMI requirements? Let's hope this will push HDMI 2.0a and DisplayPort 1.3 availability on new GPU.Ryan Smith - Sunday, May 17, 2015 - link
As listed in the article, the HDMI requirement is 1.3. 2.0 (or DisplayPort) are not necessary.jmke - Monday, May 18, 2015 - link
what an unintelligent and poor statement.Minimum specifications. that's what they have listed.
the min. system specs for devs to aim at when making games; so you can offer a playable VR game to mass market, if it is at low quality settings, so be it, if you want to run Crysis 5 on Oculus you can do so with your GTX 970 at low quality settings, but if you want very high, you'll need two Geforce GTX next-gen in SLI...
that's how it has always been with gaming, difference here is that they are launching a platform, not just VR goggles, because hardware peripheral without software to back it, is worthless.
jmke - Monday, May 18, 2015 - link
that's where timewarp comes into play, trying to even out the low FPS dips, so you don't really need to have 90fps min at all times, a few dips here and there will be smoothed out with timewarphttps://www.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-timewarp/
but you still need a lot of horse power, with DK2 and GTX 970 , AAA titles run with medium-high quality settings without issue (Alien Isolation, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars, ...), less GFX prone games run amazingly well, the unreal and unity engines are very flexible to allow image quality to be dynamically adapted to match hardware specs and targeted fps