My CPU suppports SSE 4.2: will it work with the Oculus Rift S? — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

My CPU suppports SSE 4.2: will it work with the Oculus Rift S?

I have an older generation Intel i7 processor (875K) which supports SSE 4.2 and which I can overclock to about 4.0GHz. I understand that a number of people have expressed that their older CPUs are being blocked by Oculus software, rendering the Rift unusable. Whereas I appreciate that the VR experience is undoubtedly better with a very recent and powerful processor, will I be prevented from using the Rift S with my current CPU? 

Comments

  • trek554trek554 Posts: 71
    Hiro Protagonist
    edited October 3
    why on earth have you not upgraded from that nearly 10 year old relic? the minimum cpu listed is nearly 50% faster than your cpu so SSE is not your only worry.  please list the rest of your specs too as it will be funny to see how outdated they are. and if you did upgrade to a gpu good enough for VR then it would be severely held back by your cpu anyway.  going out and buying a $400 VR headset when you cant even upgrade to modern hardware makes zero sense.  
    Win 10 Pro | i9 9900KF | MSI Gaming Pro Carbon AC | MSI GTX1080 Ti Gaming X | G.SKILL 32GB DDR4 3200 CL14 | Samsung Evo 860 4TB SSD | Cooler Master CM500 | EVGA SuperNOVA P2 750 watt | Sound Blaster Zx
  • LecLightning58LecLightning58 Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    First and foremost money: not all us us are super-rich and can afford/justify the expenditure on hardware upgrades specifically for e.g. a VR experience. I am merely seeking opinion and advice on the matter if anyone is any the wiser. As it happens, for what I enjoy with my PC, my (joke?) CPU is more than capable of delivering when overclocked to about 4.0GHz. I am reluctant to invest heavily in new kit largely because of uncertainties in how the technology will evolve in a particular field of gaming (flight simulation), when recent developments suggest that flight simulation may become more GPU-intensive.

    Anyone, for what they are worth for the world have a laugh at, my specs are:

    RTX 1070 Super with 8GB RAM
    16GB RAM
    Intel i7 875K processor overclocked to 4.0GHz

    And yes, I do not intend to invest in VR at the present time largely on grounds of is own evolving technology and doubts raised over current display resolution in the niche world of flight simulation (e.g. reading cockpit instruments etc.). It seems curious to me that some people are quite happy to upgrade from one VR headset to the next iteration at some expense in order to experience improved performance: I think that I would prefer to watch from a distance until such time that VR products mature into something that satisfies the criteria and PC requirements for future flight simulation applications become more widely known to the community before I commit myself to a major overhaul of my hardware. It is interesting that Microsoft is developing a new Flight Simulator product at this present time and is not dedicating anything to VR-integration with this product. In truth, the early adoption of VR into flight simulation products may have been a bit of a con on account of the poor resolution of some of the earlier VR headsets which rather negates the use of VR for the purpose of reading instruments and displays.

    Anyway, if you feel that my CPU is too weak and the VR experience is unlikely to impress then so be it: better not to have wasted my time and money and thanks for the advice. 

  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 1,141
    Wintermute
    edited October 4
    Have you already run the Oculus compatibility test?

    A quick google shows at least one website that thinks your CPU will be okay..................
    https://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=23226&canMyCpuRunIt=Oculus Rift

    I'd want to hear from other users though if it was me.

    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - 0 PROBLEMS
  • LecLightning58LecLightning58 Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    Richooal said:
    Have you already run the Oculus compatibility test?
    Yes, I did manage to find a download for the compatibility test but it failed me on the CPU (does this mean that Oculus is a non-starter for me full stop?). What I don't know is whether or not SSE 4.2 is a definite prerequisite for Oculus and also if the test is based on the raw specifications of the CPU, not on its overclocking capabilities. I have no way of knowing whether or not Oculus software will tell me to upgrade my CPU/PC and block from me using e.g. the Rift S. All I know is that SSE 4.2 may be a definite requirement governing Oculus's acceptance of the CPU for VR applications, based on other postings from people with older CPUs, who have (putting it impolitely) been told by Oculus software to go away and upgrade their systems (even when such people claim they could happily use Oculus before software policies changed towards older CPUs that Oculus feels do not meet the minimum requirement).

    The bottom line is if my CPU is too weak even overclocked at 4GHz then so be it. I am happy to sit on the fence until such time the technology improves and hopefully the future of, in my case, flight simulation becomes more apparent in terms of the evolving technology we are seeing now with Microsoft's latest iteration of Flight Simulator and what this means in terms of hardware requirements.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,505 Valuable Player
    edited October 4
    Richooal said:
    Have you already run the Oculus compatibility test?
    Yes, I did manage to find a download for the compatibility test but it failed me on the CPU (does this mean that Oculus is a non-starter for me full stop?). What I don't know is whether or not SSE 4.2 is a definite prerequisite for Oculus and also if the test is based on the raw specifications of the CPU, not on its overclocking capabilities. I have no way of knowing whether or not Oculus software will tell me to upgrade my CPU/PC and block from me using e.g. the Rift S. All I know is that SSE 4.2 may be a definite requirement governing Oculus's acceptance of the CPU for VR applications, based on other postings from people with older CPUs, who have (putting it impolitely) been told by Oculus software to go away and upgrade their systems (even when such people claim they could happily use Oculus before software policies changed towards older CPUs that Oculus feels do not meet the minimum requirement).

    The bottom line is if my CPU is too weak even overclocked at 4GHz then so be it. I am happy to sit on the fence until such time the technology improves and hopefully the future of, in my case, flight simulation becomes more apparent in terms of the evolving technology we are seeing now with Microsoft's latest iteration of Flight Simulator and what this means in terms of hardware requirements.
    It sounds like you are just beating a dead horse. Any CPU release in the last 6 years now has support for it and there are MANY reasons to upgrade now more than ever. In the last 6 years you could see a 50-200% or more improvement witch is the level of performance you wanna see at this point for any upgrade cost value. GHz means nothing anymore - and trying to claim it is is silly. Hell - we have 5GHz normal cpus if you wanna compare that now...  Just saying - technology pushing forward - there is little reason not to have hardware at this point that doesn't support min specs of the hardware now. Not trying to be rude or anything - so sorry if it sounds like I am - it's just - that out of date - I dont think you would have a good time in VR or any time for that matter now. Yes, if you can, I really recommend upgrading - go a Ryzen build if money is on the tight. I just built one and was able to get some pretty extreme FPS increases without blowing the bank (upgraded from an Intel Core i7-3770).

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-875K+%40+2.93GHz&id=846

    Honestly, I am not even sure how that RTX 1070 Super is being feed enough data to keep up - almost a waste of performance/money to have (again, not trying to be rude). 
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,701 Valuable Player
    I definitely would not purchase VR HMD with that CPU.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case| Rift S | Quest |
  • LecLightning58LecLightning58 Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    Mradr said:
    Richooal said:
    Have you already run the Oculus compatibility test?
    Yes, I did manage to find a download for the compatibility test but it failed me on the CPU (does this mean that Oculus is a non-starter for me full stop?). What I don't know is whether or not SSE 4.2 is a definite prerequisite for Oculus and also if the test is based on the raw specifications of the CPU, not on its overclocking capabilities. I have no way of knowing whether or not Oculus software will tell me to upgrade my CPU/PC and block from me using e.g. the Rift S. All I know is that SSE 4.2 may be a definite requirement governing Oculus's acceptance of the CPU for VR applications, based on other postings from people with older CPUs, who have (putting it impolitely) been told by Oculus software to go away and upgrade their systems (even when such people claim they could happily use Oculus before software policies changed towards older CPUs that Oculus feels do not meet the minimum requirement).

    The bottom line is if my CPU is too weak even overclocked at 4GHz then so be it. I am happy to sit on the fence until such time the technology improves and hopefully the future of, in my case, flight simulation becomes more apparent in terms of the evolving technology we are seeing now with Microsoft's latest iteration of Flight Simulator and what this means in terms of hardware requirements.
    It sounds like you are just beating a dead horse. Any CPU release in the last 6 years now has support for it and there are MANY reasons to upgrade now more than ever. In the last 6 years you could see a 50-200% or more improvement witch is the level of performance you wanna see at this point for any upgrade cost value. GHz means nothing anymore - and trying to claim it is is silly. Hell - we have 5GHz normal cpus if you wanna compare that now...  Just saying - technology pushing forward - there is little reason not to have hardware at this point that doesn't support min specs of the hardware now. Not trying to be rude or anything - so sorry if it sounds like I am - it's just - that out of date - I dont think you would have a good time in VR or any time for that matter now. Yes, if you can, I really recommend upgrading - go a Ryzen build if money is on the tight. I just built one and was able to get some pretty extreme FPS increases without blowing the bank (upgraded from an Intel Core i7-3770).

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-875K+%40+2.93GHz&id=846

    Honestly, I am not even sure how that RTX 1070 Super is being feed enough data to keep up - almost a waste of performance/money to have (again, not trying to be rude). 
    Thanks for the kind advice on the subject. I don't think that I am so desperate for VR that I am likely to trash my existing PC quite so quickly. In the field of flight simulation it would appear that we are a cat chasing its tail with ever-increasing hardware requirements to enjoy the experience to the full: all this may change with the flight simulator software currently under development by Microsoft. 

    On the subject of the graphics card, I see your point but it was only until I upgraded to this card that I managed to get G-Sync working without black screens occurring ever so occasionally (and prolonged) so the upgrade can be justified. 

    Finally, I was only really seeking the opinions of the community at large (which has been achieved), but I made a point earlier that some Oculus users who claim to have previously enjoyed the VR experience successfully have now been blocked by Oculus on grounds of their out-of-date CPUs, irrespective of the fact that these CPUs were quite adequate for what the users had intended. I would view this situation as not so much a reluctance to upgrade on the part of those users concerned, but praiseworthy performance by the Oculus equipment itself. More the pity that Oculus do not see it this way and opt to oust certain individuals out of enjoying their own products, merely because they view their CPUs as inferior and sub-standard when the user's experience is quite the opposite. Each to his/her own when it comes to choice of equipment for the desired purpose, but in this case those users affected may feel somewhat discriminated against. I think that this is the issue that I sought to raise in this thread, namely there is always an element of uncertainty governing the usefulness of the product for your intended applications. The manufacturer may specify minimum/recommended hardware requirements but perhaps instead of blocking users completely the apparatus should still be useable and let the user determine what the limitations are for their specific application: if for example text cannot be read easily then perhaps higher resolution VR equipment is required - something that even the manufacturer cannot wholly guarantee in the minimum hardware requirements if they have never tested the equipment with the specific software concerned (and presumably for which they can never vouch having satisfactory compliance).

    Anyway, I have had my say and thank for all for your comments unless there are any people out there who claim to use Oculus equipment with less-than-ideal processors who nevertheless do boast a satisfactory and enjoyable experience: surely this is commendatory to Oculus as opposed to viewing such individuals as somehow operating Fred Flintstone equipment. My original question has not been answered directly and it is only out of interest's sake not necessarily that I endeavour to dive in and buy the equipemnt posthaste (on the obvious premise that I could be taking a gamble with its performance with my weaker system).

    I shall watch developments with interest and maybe take the plunge later, when circumstances are right both in terms of the maturity of the intended applications (flight simulation, which is thought to be currently inadequate), and also improvements to VR technology.
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,520 Volunteer Moderator
    I don't know if other aspects might stop it, but SSE 4.2 is a requirement that has stopped some very old CPUs from working.

    Windows VR headsets like the Odyssey and Reverb are even fussier than the Oculus ones, they need AVX support in addition to SSE 4.2. So Oculus has wider support for older CPUs than some of the competitors.

  • LecLightning58LecLightning58 Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    kojack said:
    I don't know if other aspects might stop it, but SSE 4.2 is a requirement that has stopped some very old CPUs from working.

    Windows VR headsets like the Odyssey and Reverb are even fussier than the Oculus ones, they need AVX support in addition to SSE 4.2. So Oculus has wider support for older CPUs than some of the competitors.

    I think this answers my question, but it may be that other aspects might stop my system, let alone how well the headset performs with a weaker system even if the Oculus software does oblige.
  • trek554trek554 Posts: 71
    Hiro Protagonist
    edited October 4
    There is no such thing as an RTX 1070 super so I assume you mean 2070. And sticking a 2070 super in there was flat-out stupid in my opinion as you don't even remotely come close to getting the full benefit out of that card. Hell even a card half as fast as that would not get fully utilized in some games with that CPU. That CPU does not even meet minimum requirements for most modern games.
    Win 10 Pro | i9 9900KF | MSI Gaming Pro Carbon AC | MSI GTX1080 Ti Gaming X | G.SKILL 32GB DDR4 3200 CL14 | Samsung Evo 860 4TB SSD | Cooler Master CM500 | EVGA SuperNOVA P2 750 watt | Sound Blaster Zx
  • LecLightning58LecLightning58 Posts: 6
    NerveGear
    trek554 said:
    There is no such thing as an RTX 1070 super so I assume you mean 2070. And sticking a 2070 super in there was flat-out stupid in my opinion as you don't even remotely come close to getting the full benefit out of that card. Hell even a card half as fast as that would not get fully utilized in some games with that CPU. That CPU does not even meet minimum requirements for most modern games.
    Thanks for correcting my typo error. Thanks also for the assassination of my anything-but-salubrious computer equipment as well as questioning my mental faculties. First and foremost, my computer is primarily a computer and not a gaming platform. I do indulge a little in flight simulation for the purpose of e.g. practicing approaches to airports and airfields for which my hardware is actually quite adequate. Most people who use flight simulation do not view it necessarily as a game but as an educational and training tool (even for professional pilots).

    Personally (and please do not take this as a personal insult), but I find gaming very silly and prefer to indulge in more reality-based activities (yes, there is a real world out there). As for my GPU, for what little software (flight simulation) I use where G-Sync is useful, my choice of GPU was necessary to run G-Sync in the first place and secondly because the use of a 1070 resulted in prolonged black screens in G-Sync which Nvidia was never going to fix: the use of an RTX 2070 Super has cleared this problem up completely. Also, I believe that I am correct that the 8GB RAM with my GPU is also necessary for some of the more demanding graphics-related applications within flight simulation software. Heck, people with exceptionally high-spec PCs struggle in flight simulation at the most demanding level to the point where even they find the software is unusable (let alone considerations of whether or not VR is still useable). Where flight simulation is concerned, it may be moving away from being wholly CPU-based and instead may exploit the capabilities of the GPU to better advantage. It will be interesting to see what Microsoft delivers in this respect next year with their latest incarnation of Flight Simulator.

    Oh yeah, funds permitting I may myself upgrade my kit appropriately when conditions are right to do so (i.e. when we get the really decent flight simulation software the community has been craving for over many decades).
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,505 Valuable Player
    edited October 5
    Yes, and sorry about the wording there on my post as well. It's just hard to think that hardware is still out there being used when there is just newer hardware out there esp in todays age of Ryzen lowering prices down by almost half over Intel CPUs. So you might get a lot of kick back over the idea of letting customers choose what hardware is "right" when tech guys like us see something that old still in production use and question what are you talking about?


    Not sure what software you are using for say (even if you told me I would think it's back from the DOS days) as most modern engines use GPU base graphics and not CPU anymore. This sounds like a really poorly maintained peace of software...

    Anyways - that aside - yes you can get production level hardware setup for VR and flight sims - but it really just comes down to how the software really reacts with it all. That's one of the major problems that sim setup faces. More or less - as I said before - upgrading the hardware is always going to be the first step from the customer end. Once the hardware is upgraded and meets what the dev is requesting - then the software needs to be optimize for that hardware and then still offer more performance for bigger better hardware. The major programs we see now is that the software is just old - not maintained for newer hardware - limited resources to keep it maintained - or simply out peace for the time it was created for. Lots of reasons cause that from all the complex designs/buttons found in some of the plans to recreating physics that people tend to look forward to.

    Right now, VR might not be for you unless you really plan to play games outside of sims as well to get the most value out of it. On the other hand, maybe sims are worth every penny for you - in that case - try it and see if you like it, but without hardware that can support it first - it might not be something you can setup on the spot either. Aka, don't fear to try - just make sure you are ready for any kick if it doesn't work the first time or at all for your needs just yet.

    VR is really fun though. Even for the sims I got try it with - flying is just out of the world and so is racing. It just all comes down to the software more than anything, so just make sure to really do your research and maybe talk with follow "brothers" of that time of software to see if they tried it out as well and what problems/what they like about it.
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,149
    Wintermute
    At 4GHz, it looks like you should get similar performance to my i7-3770 which I played hundreds of hours of VR games on with no problems until the PC died (including FSX and Prepar3D). So there are no guarantees, but it may well work OK.
  • trek554trek554 Posts: 71
    Hiro Protagonist
    edited October 5
    edmg said:
    At 4GHz, it looks like you should get similar performance to my i7-3770 which I played hundreds of hours of VR games on with no problems until the PC died (including FSX and Prepar3D). So there are no guarantees, but it may well work OK.

    what are you basing that on? according to passmark, a 3770 is over 70% faster than a stock 875k so even with the 875k at 4.0 it would be no where near as fast as a 3770.  the 875k already turbos to 3.2 on 4 cores anyway so even with it at 4.0 your 3770  would still be close to 50% faster. 
    Win 10 Pro | i9 9900KF | MSI Gaming Pro Carbon AC | MSI GTX1080 Ti Gaming X | G.SKILL 32GB DDR4 3200 CL14 | Samsung Evo 860 4TB SSD | Cooler Master CM500 | EVGA SuperNOVA P2 750 watt | Sound Blaster Zx
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,505 Valuable Player
    trek554 said:
    edmg said:
    At 4GHz, it looks like you should get similar performance to my i7-3770 which I played hundreds of hours of VR games on with no problems until the PC died (including FSX and Prepar3D). So there are no guarantees, but it may well work OK.

    what are you basing that on? according to passmark, a 3770 is over 70% faster than a stock 875k so even with the 875k at 4.0 it would be no where near as fast as a 3770.  the 875k already turbos to 3.2 on 4 cores anyway so even with it at 4.0 your 3770  would still be close to 50% faster. 
    Hmnnn he's right though - Even at 4.0GHz - it's no where near that level of cpu because of the IPC improvements over the years. Like I said before - GHz means nothing in today's age. The only difference is if you are comparing a cpu between the line of cpus with in that cat (3770 vs 3770k). This isn't even close to being comparable in this case.

    On the other hand - the 3770 is the bare base line I would keep above for VR at this time. Anything lower -  you will be asking for trouble in the next few years as well as we continue to use more cores for improvements and off loading of some task. At this point in time - if you are still on that CPU - I really recommend looking to upgrade either it be Intel 8-9-10k or Ryzen 2-3-4k line ups. 
Sign In or Register to comment.