The VR industry badly needs standardization if it expects to prosper. Right now, besides the obvious cost barriers, the technological problems that prevent it from working with iGPUs, and the nausea issue, the fact that one company's gear works with a certain program and not with another harkens back to bad old days of 3Dfx Glide versus early DirectX versus whatever random thing PowerVR was doing. Consolidation of the graphics industry has really help with that problem since there are now only two GPU manufacturers making hardware for one dominant standard. Look at how much its done to help promote hardware progress and low prices...oh wait...nevermind.
I doubt VR will work with integrated GPUs for quite some time. iGPUs don't have anywhere near the graphical horsepower required. There would have to be an increase in 1) iGPU processing power 2) iGPU VRAM bandwidth 3) Algorithmic tricks to reduce the necessary pixel rendering for VR.
HBM2 or HMC or even eDRAM, any of the above would solve it. If only Intel gave a damn about integrated graphics and eDRAM for anything other than mobile. Maybe AMD can pull something off with Zen to shake up the industry.
Yes, you're correct that current generation iGPUs are insufficient to drive VR hardware, but a lot of that problem is rooted in high screen resolutions which might optionally be lowered in the inevitable race to the bottom that VR gear will see in the future if it becomes mainstream while at the same time, iGPU technology slowly improves.
I'm not a fan of VR technologies as I've had my fill with prior attempts to field headgear by other companies prior to Oculus opening the door to a new generation of equipment. However, in the present day, with the vast majority of computers sold being non-upgradeable laptops and a smaller number of business-class and low-end consumer desktops, there's a very comparatively small number of computers capable of driving VR hardware and an even smaller subset of those computers' owners who are actually interested in making a purchase at the current price. Until the future equivelant of an mid- to low-cost laptop can drive VR, there simply won't be broad enough appeal to support the number of competing companies that are trying to turn a profit selling their hardware. That's a huge hurdle that standardization can somewhat mitigate by at least improving compatibility and increasing the incentives of software developers to support encased, head mounted dual screen setups that we're currently seeing marketed as virtual reality equipment.
Sony had better get with the picture quickly. They have a solid lead right now with PS VR (If for no other reason than cost, and that PS4s are ubiquitous) but they will be rendered obsolete if a unified API is created and Sony isn't in on that action.
For consoles you mean... Their very core was changed in order to follow standards imposed by the PC industry: x86 CPU, relatively standard GPU (although in a custom implementation), standard PC architecture, standard connectivity, even the OS is moving towards the PC. And what's not borrowed from the PC ecosystems is borrowed from the mobile one (like the concept of a store).
I can think of very few things that consoles imposed on the rest of the world. Except a sense of entitlement and superiority to some people. But PCs have also done this to the same kind of people for decades.
The move to x86 hardware was done to reduce costs and make porting easier. Standards conformity was only relevant to the point that it made it easier to sell the same titles to PC owners to generate additional, secondary income at a smaller investment cost. In the end, it's not an us-versus-them sort of thing, but a matter of generating income. If using commodity PC hardware is the best course to take, then that's simply where the industry will go.
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
13 Comments
Back to Article
edzieba - Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - link
We can hope this does not fall to the curse of early standardisation (like VRML). Also interesting that HTC are absent even though Valve are involved.T1beriu - Thursday, December 8, 2016 - link
HTC built what VALVE designed.BrokenCrayons - Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - link
The VR industry badly needs standardization if it expects to prosper. Right now, besides the obvious cost barriers, the technological problems that prevent it from working with iGPUs, and the nausea issue, the fact that one company's gear works with a certain program and not with another harkens back to bad old days of 3Dfx Glide versus early DirectX versus whatever random thing PowerVR was doing. Consolidation of the graphics industry has really help with that problem since there are now only two GPU manufacturers making hardware for one dominant standard. Look at how much its done to help promote hardware progress and low prices...oh wait...nevermind.MajGenRelativity - Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - link
I doubt VR will work with integrated GPUs for quite some time. iGPUs don't have anywhere near the graphical horsepower required. There would have to be an increase in 1) iGPU processing power 2) iGPU VRAM bandwidth 3) Algorithmic tricks to reduce the necessary pixel rendering for VR.fanofanand - Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - link
HBM2 would solve your second issue.MajGenRelativity - Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - link
HBM2 or HMC or even eDRAM, any of the above would solve it. If only Intel gave a damn about integrated graphics and eDRAM for anything other than mobile. Maybe AMD can pull something off with Zen to shake up the industry.BrokenCrayons - Thursday, December 8, 2016 - link
Yes, you're correct that current generation iGPUs are insufficient to drive VR hardware, but a lot of that problem is rooted in high screen resolutions which might optionally be lowered in the inevitable race to the bottom that VR gear will see in the future if it becomes mainstream while at the same time, iGPU technology slowly improves.I'm not a fan of VR technologies as I've had my fill with prior attempts to field headgear by other companies prior to Oculus opening the door to a new generation of equipment. However, in the present day, with the vast majority of computers sold being non-upgradeable laptops and a smaller number of business-class and low-end consumer desktops, there's a very comparatively small number of computers capable of driving VR hardware and an even smaller subset of those computers' owners who are actually interested in making a purchase at the current price. Until the future equivelant of an mid- to low-cost laptop can drive VR, there simply won't be broad enough appeal to support the number of competing companies that are trying to turn a profit selling their hardware. That's a huge hurdle that standardization can somewhat mitigate by at least improving compatibility and increasing the incentives of software developers to support encased, head mounted dual screen setups that we're currently seeing marketed as virtual reality equipment.
fanofanand - Wednesday, December 7, 2016 - link
Sony had better get with the picture quickly. They have a solid lead right now with PS VR (If for no other reason than cost, and that PS4s are ubiquitous) but they will be rendered obsolete if a unified API is created and Sony isn't in on that action.T1beriu - Thursday, December 8, 2016 - link
Consoles don't need to join standards. Consoles set standards.close - Friday, December 9, 2016 - link
For consoles you mean... Their very core was changed in order to follow standards imposed by the PC industry: x86 CPU, relatively standard GPU (although in a custom implementation), standard PC architecture, standard connectivity, even the OS is moving towards the PC. And what's not borrowed from the PC ecosystems is borrowed from the mobile one (like the concept of a store).I can think of very few things that consoles imposed on the rest of the world. Except a sense of entitlement and superiority to some people. But PCs have also done this to the same kind of people for decades.
martixy - Friday, December 9, 2016 - link
Hear, hear. :)BrokenCrayons - Monday, December 12, 2016 - link
The move to x86 hardware was done to reduce costs and make porting easier. Standards conformity was only relevant to the point that it made it easier to sell the same titles to PC owners to generate additional, secondary income at a smaller investment cost. In the end, it's not an us-versus-them sort of thing, but a matter of generating income. If using commodity PC hardware is the best course to take, then that's simply where the industry will go.danjw - Friday, December 9, 2016 - link
They buy their SOCs from AMD.