10-08-2019 08:15 AM
10-11-2019 04:20 PM
Mradr said:
Spuzzum said:
T_K_T said:
From a technical standpoint, no. I don’t have a quest, but I at least know that it doesn’t run as well as the Rift S. FB is doing this to give Quest users much more content. Sure, the quest can go wireless and wired, but in the end the experience won’t be as polished as the rift s
Until it actually releases to the public, and people get hands-on reviews, then all this is just speculation. The Quest's OLED screens are far better for blacks and colours than the Rift-S's LCD panel, and being able to manually adjust the IPD slider, to a broader range of eyes out there, that alone makes the Quest better than the Rift-S. The Quest also has 2880x1600 resolution, while the Rift-S is still only 2560x1440. The Quest, while tethered, will be reduced to the Rift-S's 2560x1440 though. Personally, I'd rather have the Quest and Link than a Rift-S. Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
Hmmm he also goes on to say - while this might be possible to do at 90Hz - the method at witch they encode/decode wouldn't be fast enough and thus the reason why they drop the resolution from 2880x1600 to 2560x1440. If there are any improves in the compression - it'll go to not having to compress as hard for image quality it self.
nalex66 said:
Spuzzum said:
...Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
It’s not just about recertification though. Due to the decoder bottleneck, you’d be trading off frame rate against resolution or compression. I believe Carmack commented that between getting more frames or higher resolution, he’d rather have the better image quality.
10-11-2019 04:27 PM
Spuzzum said:Crap...I never even thought of that. 😛 150Mb/s @ 72fps definitely looks better than 150Mb/s @ 90fps at the same resolution. The pipeline is limited to 150Mb/s...can they create multiple pipelines, acting in SLI? 😛
10-11-2019 04:35 PM
Mradr said:
Spuzzum said:Crap...I never even thought of that. 😛 150Mb/s @ 72fps definitely looks better than 150Mb/s @ 90fps at the same resolution. The pipeline is limited to 150Mb/s...can they create multiple pipelines, acting in SLI? 😛
They could - but then you still would have to sync the split image or data thus creating a frame or more of lag thus it wont work well enough. Not to say they can't make it work - if SLI has proven anything - split data can be harder to handle than a single run.
10-11-2019 04:44 PM
10-11-2019 04:54 PM
10-11-2019 05:03 PM
Spuzzum said:
So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
10-11-2019 05:07 PM
Mradr said:
Spuzzum said:
So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.
10-11-2019 05:10 PM
Spuzzum said:
Mradr said:
Spuzzum said:
So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.
That's why I said to push the codec/process. If it can do it with the same bandwidth, then there's no problem. As long as the quality doesn't suffer. Is the audio signal included in that 150Mb/s(?). If so, then that could be tweaked a bit as well.
10-11-2019 05:16 PM
Mradr said:
Spuzzum said:
Mradr said:
Spuzzum said:
So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.
That's why I said to push the codec/process. If it can do it with the same bandwidth, then there's no problem. As long as the quality doesn't suffer. Is the audio signal included in that 150Mb/s(?). If so, then that could be tweaked a bit as well.
It would though - they can't really "overclock" the part of the process or else they would've anyways I would assume. I dont think it's a latency issue - it be more of a bandwidth issue more than anything.
10-11-2019 08:23 PM