New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Optimal GPU for Quest today?

gamesky22gamesky22 Posts: 1
NerveGear
I could not find much VR focused GPU benchmarks so I though I would ask:

WHAT IS THE CHEAPEST GPU, THAT WOULD RUN CURRENT VR GAMES (OR LETS SAY PROJECT CARS 2) TO THE FULL OCULUS QUEST CAPACITY (on very high graphics settings with 2880 x 1440 resolution and stable framerate 72hz) ?

I need to upgrade my PC for Oculus Link

Comments

  • nalex66nalex66 Posts: 4,879 Volunteer Moderator
    edited October 7
    Oculus hasn’t released any details of minimum or recommended specs. For now, assume that it’s the same requirements as Rift. The frame rate is a bit lower, but there’s extra work to be done encoding the stream. 

    If you’re looking at a current gen GPU, I’d say at least a GTX 1660. The AMD equivalent is probably cheaper, but I don’t know their video cards well enough to make a recommendation. 
    i7 5820K @ 4.25 GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32 GB | Corsair HX 750W
    Corsair Hydro H100i | Samsung SSDs: 860 Evo 1 TB, 850 Evo 1 TB, 840 Evo 1 TB | Seagate BarraCuda HDD 3 TB
  • BrotherO4BrotherO4 Posts: 7
    NerveGear
    vega 56 which is sold at 250$ now is by far the best deal in the gpu market.
  • iNIKELiNIKEL Posts: 5
    NerveGear
    My thoughts are that oculus link is going to work through single USB cable connected to PC, so you probably will need extra PC power to encode video before sending it to quest unlike just outputting to displayport for rift s. Am I right?
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,066 Valuable Player
    if you want to play games like pCARS2 and get a decent experience a GTX980 / GTX 1070 / any turing card should be fine (sorry I do not know how AMD are with VR)

    if however you want to run pCARS2 at full bubble in VR and not rely on ASW that is a totally different ball game.......  I would guess you are looking at a 1080ti or RTX 2080 for that.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • nalex66nalex66 Posts: 4,879 Volunteer Moderator
    iNIKEL said:
    My thoughts are that oculus link is going to work through single USB cable connected to PC, so you probably will need extra PC power to encode video before sending it to quest unlike just outputting to displayport for rift s. Am I right?
    Yes, the encoding will take some extra work, but that probably won’t drive the GPU requirement higher; it will most likely be the CPU that deals with it. 
    i7 5820K @ 4.25 GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32 GB | Corsair HX 750W
    Corsair Hydro H100i | Samsung SSDs: 860 Evo 1 TB, 850 Evo 1 TB, 840 Evo 1 TB | Seagate BarraCuda HDD 3 TB
  • iNIKELiNIKEL Posts: 5
    NerveGear
    edited October 8
    nalex66 said:
    iNIKEL said:
    My thoughts are that oculus link is going to work through single USB cable connected to PC, so you probably will need extra PC power to encode video before sending it to quest unlike just outputting to displayport for rift s. Am I right?
    Yes, the encoding will take some extra work, but that probably won’t drive the GPU requirement higher; it will most likely be the CPU that deals with it. 

    nalex66 said:
    iNIKEL said:
    My thoughts are that oculus link is going to work through single USB cable connected to PC, so you probably will need extra PC power to encode video before sending it to quest unlike just outputting to displayport for rift s. Am I right?
    Yes, the encoding will take some extra work, but that probably won’t drive the GPU requirement higher; it will most likely be the CPU that deals with it. 
    Depends whether Oculus will make decision to encode with GPU or CPU. Heard NVEnc is pretty good, but I hope they will make it as an option.
  • teastonteaston Posts: 21
    Brain Burst
    nalex66 said:
    Oculus hasn’t released any details of minimum or recommended specs. For now, assume that it’s the same requirements as Rift. The frame rate is a bit lower, but there’s extra work to be done encoding the stream. 

    If you’re looking at a current gen GPU, I’d say at least a GTX 1660. The AMD equivalent is probably cheaper, but I don’t know their video cards well enough to make a recommendation. 
    Apparently AMD graphics cards are not good for Oculus games, so best to stick with Nvidia. 
  • teastonteaston Posts: 21
    Brain Burst
    m70b1jr said:
    teaston said:
    nalex66 said:
    Oculus hasn’t released any details of minimum or recommended specs. For now, assume that it’s the same requirements as Rift. The frame rate is a bit lower, but there’s extra work to be done encoding the stream. 

    If you’re looking at a current gen GPU, I’d say at least a GTX 1660. The AMD equivalent is probably cheaper, but I don’t know their video cards well enough to make a recommendation. 
    Apparently AMD graphics cards are not good for Oculus games, so best to stick with Nvidia. 
    Nvidia and intel are garbage, their the apple of tech componets. Get a used Vega 56, best deal on the market.
    Well I’ve got an Nvidia gpu, and an iPhone, and I’m very happy with them!  ;)
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,066 Valuable Player
    m70b1jr said:
     
    Nvidia and intel are garbage, their the apple of tech componets. Get a used Vega 56, best deal on the market.
    given Oculus are oft compared to the Apple of the VR market it is interesting that you choose to support oculus then.

    Nvidia love them or hate them make the best gaming gpus on the market today. this is an objective fact (sadly).  My hope is navi 20 will change this but I am not holding my breath.  I have heard all the positive spin from AMD before WRT their gpus but the reality is AMD do not even have a gpu to better a 1080ti at the moment and that is early 2017 nvidia.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • TomCgcmfcTomCgcmfc Posts: 1,369
    Project 2501
    Probably best to wait until the Quest Link actually comes out (next month?) and see what others find optimum pc hardware to support it.

    Custom built gaming desktop; i9 9900k (water cooled) oc to 5ghz, gtx 1080 ti (from my old AGA), 32 gb 3000hz ram, 1 tb ssd, 4 tb hdd.  Asus  ROG Maximus xi hero wifi mb, StarTech 4 port/4 controller sata powered usb3.0 pcie card, Asus VG248QE 1080p 144hz gaming monitor, Oculus Rift cv1 w/2x sensors. Vive Cosmos, currently work in progress.

  • m70b1jrm70b1jr Posts: 11
    NerveGear
    m70b1jr said:
     
    Nvidia and intel are garbage, their the apple of tech componets. Get a used Vega 56, best deal on the market.
    given Oculus are oft compared to the Apple of the VR market it is interesting that you choose to support oculus then.

    Nvidia love them or hate them make the best gaming gpus on the market today. this is an objective fact (sadly).  My hope is navi 20 will change this but I am not holding my breath.  I have heard all the positive spin from AMD before WRT their gpus but the reality is AMD do not even have a gpu to better a 1080ti at the moment and that is early 2017 nvidia.
    I dont own an oculus, I own a Samsung odyssey+
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,066 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    AHH ok in which case you won't be experiencing oculus titles natively . Games which directly support oculus tend to run better on lower end hardware than when using a steamVR wrapper. (That said I don't have much experience of windows MR, the tracking did not do it for me) perhaps windows MR rubs better under steamVR than oculus does

    .a nice apples to apples comparison of this is dirt rally 2. 
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,519 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    m70b1jr said:
     
    Nvidia and intel are garbage, their the apple of tech componets. Get a used Vega 56, best deal on the market.
    given Oculus are oft compared to the Apple of the VR market it is interesting that you choose to support oculus then.

    Nvidia love them or hate them make the best gaming gpus on the market today. this is an objective fact (sadly).  My hope is navi 20 will change this but I am not holding my breath.  I have heard all the positive spin from AMD before WRT their gpus but the reality is AMD do not even have a gpu to better a 1080ti at the moment and that is early 2017 nvidia.
    Well not 100% true - but I do mostly agree. Current AMD cards can compete up to a 2080 for half the price. The problem is they don't support the new features such as RT or VRS that we need for VR. Granted, these are not added yet, mainly do to time and AMD not supporting it, getting a 20s card will grant you at least a few more years for when they do start supporting it. In the mean time, if you are looking for something like a cheap rig to start getting into VR - AMD does do a slight better job here in terms of latency that does result in a smoother game play along with less game breaking patches.  NV is still price really high - so unless you have a little extra money to spend - value to performance AMD still comes in. Granted, if you want the best of the best - then NV has your back though even if its only maybe 10 fps higher while costing another 20-25% more. 

    AMD is behind - so while you are buying a AMD card that could meet up to a 2080 - remember it just release these cards and NV about to release new cards that beats that by Q1 of next year with AMD not releasing a new group until Q3-4. A bit of a leap frog - but the difference is that is AMD highest end card already on a new node. NV will be releasing their new cards on the same new node next meaning we should see some big performance gains or cost gains again.

    Intel is now in the same boat with Ryzen 3s costing half of what Intel does for with in the same FPS in games and 10% in benchmarks. If you need that extra little bit then Intel is still the king - but over all - most people could get by now using Ryzen 3s and not even know the difference other than cost.

    Over all - if you can wait - I say get the NV next line up of cards as it'll support all the new features and improve on the current ones by - well - a lot. On the other hand, if you want a PC now on a budget - get an AMD system. Sure you will need to upgrade the GPU next year - but least you will have something "now" to carry you over until then. If not on a budget, then get NV card instead or hybrid AMD cpu/NV Gpu for both a performance and cost saving feature. Over all - what is consider the "best" really just comes down to how big is your wallet :P
  • vargabloodvargablood Posts: 8
    NerveGear
    edited October 11
    if you want to play games like pCARS2 and get a decent experience a GTX980 / GTX 1070 / any turing card should be fine (sorry I do not know how AMD are with VR)

    if however you want to run pCARS2 at full bubble in VR and not rely on ASW that is a totally different ball game.......  I would guess you are looking at a 1080ti or RTX 2080 for that.
    GTX980 is not enough if youre in pc2, a 980 TI is ok. But for decent experience i recommend starting with a 1070.There where various VR improvements on pascal gpus. Best is to go with a minimum of 2060s or rx 5700. But my personal experience after 2 Years with cv1 is that nvidia is in most situations the better choice for AAA vr experience...
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,066 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Full bubble PCars2 is not gonna happen on a gtx 980 however pCARS 2 is more than playable on a gtx980 (I know as that was my GPU and I bought pCARS2 and played it)
    All depends on budget but like I think I said above a gtx980 can be gotten for £100 2nd hand - I got an overclocked. to the balls one just last week for £105 delivered for my pinball)  a gtx 1070 is around £150 and a Vega 56 around £180

    It all depends on how much people want to pay

    So I agree ideally you would like pascal or newer but Maxwell can do it.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • teastonteaston Posts: 21
    Brain Burst
    Pcars2 runs great on my 1080ti!  ;)
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 641
    Neo
    Mradr said:
    m70b1jr said:
     
    Nvidia and intel are garbage, their the apple of tech componets. Get a used Vega 56, best deal on the market.
    given Oculus are oft compared to the Apple of the VR market it is interesting that you choose to support oculus then.

    Nvidia love them or hate them make the best gaming gpus on the market today. this is an objective fact (sadly).  My hope is navi 20 will change this but I am not holding my breath.  I have heard all the positive spin from AMD before WRT their gpus but the reality is AMD do not even have a gpu to better a 1080ti at the moment and that is early 2017 nvidia.
    Well not 100% true - but I do mostly agree. Current AMD cards can compete up to a 2080 for half the price. The problem is they don't support the new features such as RT or VRS that we need for VR. Granted, these are not added yet, mainly do to time and AMD not supporting it, getting a 20s card will grant you at least a few more years for when they do start supporting it. In the mean time, if you are looking for something like a cheap rig to start getting into VR - AMD does do a slight better job here in terms of latency that does result in a smoother game play along with less game breaking patches.  NV is still price really high - so unless you have a little extra money to spend - value to performance AMD still comes in. Granted, if you want the best of the best - then NV has your back though even if its only maybe 10 fps higher while costing another 20-25% more. 

    AMD is behind - so while you are buying a AMD card that could meet up to a 2080 - remember it just release these cards and NV about to release new cards that beats that by Q1 of next year with AMD not releasing a new group until Q3-4. A bit of a leap frog - but the difference is that is AMD highest end card already on a new node. NV will be releasing their new cards on the same new node next meaning we should see some big performance gains or cost gains again.

    Intel is now in the same boat with Ryzen 3s costing half of what Intel does for with in the same FPS in games and 10% in benchmarks. If you need that extra little bit then Intel is still the king - but over all - most people could get by now using Ryzen 3s and not even know the difference other than cost.

    Over all - if you can wait - I say get the NV next line up of cards as it'll support all the new features and improve on the current ones by - well - a lot. On the other hand, if you want a PC now on a budget - get an AMD system. Sure you will need to upgrade the GPU next year - but least you will have something "now" to carry you over until then. If not on a budget, then get NV card instead or hybrid AMD cpu/NV Gpu for both a performance and cost saving feature. Over all - what is consider the "best" really just comes down to how big is your wallet :P

    AMD's working on their own ray tracing and variable rate shading for foveated rendering. Word is, Navi cards will have ray tracing by December...the drivers have had the code since July, and they're currently working on the variable rate shading.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,519 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Spuzzum said:

    AMD's working on their own ray tracing and variable rate shading for foveated rendering. Word is, Navi cards will have ray tracing by December...the drivers have had the code since July, and they're currently working on the variable rate shading.
    Hmm, I  remember it coming to consoles by December (as it is hardware base), no word that it be coming to current cards this year though. I could be wrong. It just sounds like their line of cards (Q3 of next year) will have it. Note that RT it self can happen in software - when we talk about RT - we usually mean in a hardware though to get the most bang out of it.
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 641
    Neo
    There's also a tweet by an AMD rep, saying, "All of the current GPU stack support real-time raytracing via Microsoft's fallback layer in DirectX Raytracing."

    https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1098174427609612288?s=19
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,066 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    There was that ray tracing demo.... UE4 iirc which apparently was running real time on a....... Vega 56 or vega 64 iirc 4k 30fps.

    It wasn't as good as RTX (much less detail) but it was better lighting than anything I have seen non RTX. Certainly my 1080ti is bought to its knees when I try non RTX ray tracing.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,519 Valuable Player
    Spuzzum said:
    There's also a tweet by an AMD rep, saying, "All of the current GPU stack support real-time raytracing via Microsoft's fallback layer in DirectX Raytracing."

    https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1098174427609612288?s=19
    Yes, MS fall back layer is software - witch isn't as good as hardware base RT. Yes it can work, but not as well as with real time hardware. This is why 20s cost a lot more.
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 641
    Neo
    Considering the 2080Ti only gets 60 to 90 fps with RTX on though.
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 641
    Neo
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    There's also a tweet by an AMD rep, saying, "All of the current GPU stack support real-time raytracing via Microsoft's fallback layer in DirectX Raytracing."

    https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1098174427609612288?s=19
    Yes, MS fall back layer is software - witch isn't as good as hardware base RT. Yes it can work, but not as well as with real time hardware. This is why 20s cost a lot more.
    The hardware-based raytracing is supposedly going to be in the next Navi cards, coming next year.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,519 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Spuzzum said:
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    There's also a tweet by an AMD rep, saying, "All of the current GPU stack support real-time raytracing via Microsoft's fallback layer in DirectX Raytracing."

    https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1098174427609612288?s=19
    Yes, MS fall back layer is software - witch isn't as good as hardware base RT. Yes it can work, but not as well as with real time hardware. This is why 20s cost a lot more.
    The hardware-based raytracing is supposedly going to be in the next Navi cards, coming next year.
    Correct - but they wont be out till Q3-4 they said - well hinted at - supply issues with 7nm is hitting them had right now, so I dont think we will see them in Q1 for example. Plus they still have to supply consoles as well. Over all - it makes sense to see it in Q3-4. NV though is releasing sooner using Samsung as their 7nm plant - so wont have the supply issues AMD is seeing atm. There is a rumor though Samsung is having a hard time on their 7nm though.

    Spuzzum said:
    Considering the 2080Ti only gets 60 to 90 fps with RTX on though.
    Hmmm I wouldn't worry about that. A lot of that comes down to how the games uses it - it's soo new that game A doesn't even match game B method of using it. More or less it'll improve as we continue to find new ways to improve it. The reason why it'll be push though is it does save A LOT of time making light effects and improves texture details almost night and day. RTX though is a different beast as well being a NV technology and is not the same as RT it self. DLSS for example is part of that RTX release, but we all know DLSS isn't worth its salt in time and performance vs something like AMD image sharping does for FAR less time and demand on hardware.

    With consoles getting RT as well - it'll be something all future games will move to over time. It makes way too much sense not to. Also, as we continue to move forward with RT - we will be looking at a different way to do graphical pipe lines. What is call the RTEngines. Using these engines instead - we could see MASSIVE improves in FPS, graphical details, and improve power use while not being more complex than they are today short of a jump from 16 cores to massive 4 million cores but cost peanuts to produce and add on. Granted this is way above the discussion here is about.



    Back to Earth though - it really just comes down to what you have money for really. Like I said - if you have money to spend right now- I would go AMD simply because we don't know when 30s or AMD next card release will be and it's cheaper than what NV trying to sell RTX 20s at. At the same time - if you do have that money - go RTX 2070/80 super and be happy for a while if you are the type that don't upgrade that offend. If you can wait - then wait for NV as they will be releasing sooner than AMD next from what it sounds like and with the TSM shortages of 7nm.
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 641
    Neo
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    There's also a tweet by an AMD rep, saying, "All of the current GPU stack support real-time raytracing via Microsoft's fallback layer in DirectX Raytracing."

    https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1098174427609612288?s=19
    Yes, MS fall back layer is software - witch isn't as good as hardware base RT. Yes it can work, but not as well as with real time hardware. This is why 20s cost a lot more.
    The hardware-based raytracing is supposedly going to be in the next Navi cards, coming next year.
    Correct - but they wont be out till Q3-4 they said - well hinted at - supply issues with 7nm is hitting them had right now, so I dont think we will see them in Q1 for example. Plus they still have to supply consoles as well. Over all - it makes sense to see it in Q3-4. NV though is releasing sooner using Samsung as their 7nm plant - so wont have the supply issues AMD is seeing atm. There is a rumor though Samsung is having a hard time on their 7nm though.

    Spuzzum said:
    Considering the 2080Ti only gets 60 to 90 fps with RTX on though.
    Hmmm I wouldn't worry about that. A lot of that comes down to how the games uses it - it's soo new that game A doesn't even match game B method of using it. More or less it'll improve as we continue to find new ways to improve it. The reason why it'll be push though is it does save A LOT of time making light effects and improves texture details almost night and day. RTX though is a different beast as well being a NV technology and is not the same as RT it self. DLSS for example is part of that RTX release, but we all know DLSS isn't worth its salt in time and performance vs something like AMD image sharping does for FAR less time and demand on hardware.

    With consoles getting RT as well - it'll be something all future games will move to over time. It makes way too much sense not to. Also, as we continue to move forward with RT - we will be looking at a different way to do graphical pipe lines. What is call the RTEngines. Using these engines instead - we could see MASSIVE improves in FPS, graphical details, and improve power use while not being more complex than they are today short of a jump from 16 cores to massive 4 million cores but cost peanuts to produce and add on. Granted this is way above the discussion here is about.



    Back to Earth though - it really just comes down to what you have money for really. Like I said - if you have money to spend right now- I would go AMD simply because we don't know when 30s or AMD next card release will be and it's cheaper than what NV trying to sell RTX 20s at. At the same time - if you do have that money - go RTX 2070/80 super and be happy for a while if you are the type that don't upgrade that offend. If you can wait - then wait for NV as they will be releasing sooner than AMD next from what it sounds like and with the TSM shortages of 7nm.

    Fair enough, but in the end...they're working on it. :P
Sign In or Register to comment.