cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Index vs Rift S ?

JeremyC85
Level 7
I'm the type that upgrades WAY too often, and I already have the itch! 

As a loyal Oculus fanboy, the Valve Index looks phenomenal... I am having a hard time pulling the trigger on the Rift S with its compromises (mostly the audio downgrade) Is anyone jumping ship and if so, what pushed you over the edge? I love the Oculus Home and HATE steamVR with such a passion I can't see myself leaving just yet...
79 REPLIES 79

snowdog
Level 16
One of the main problems with the Index is the refresh rate. Yes, it's great that it can display up to 144Hz, but how many people have a GPU capable of running a decent game in 1600p resolution at 144fps?
"This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever

ParadoxAnomaly
Level 5
Deleted.

Wildt
Level 12

CrashFu said:




JeremyC85 said:


snowdog said:
A 10Hz drop probably won't be noticed by a lot of people 


I actually tend to agree with this. We'll see about the black levels, the newest "through the lens" video does look promising tho! 


Yes but a 120-144hz bump up will be 🙂


I don't... I don't think refresh rate works that way???

It's my understanding that the human eye (with the exception of exceptional individuals such as Fighter Pilots) just cannot see more than 60-80 frames per second, period... so for the average person there would literally be no difference between 80z and 2000hz.    Anything between would just be more frames than an average person could even see.

There's certainly no noticeable difference between 90hz and 80hz;   Oculus are the ones who invented the 90hz standard, and they were aiming high at the time, to play it safe..  if years of testing told them that 80hz or even 72hz were good enough, then I think they know better than anyone.  They wouldn't make that change if it actually risked turning off any significant number of users, after all..


There's a lot of articles etc on the subject, but personally I find the difference between 60 and 120 to be huge.

There's some decent info here

"tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps."

PCVR: CV1 || 4 sensors || TPcast wireless adapter || MamutVR Gun stock V3
PSVR: PS4 Pro || Move Controllers || Aim controller
WMR: HP Reverb

pyroth309
Level 14

CrashFu said:




JeremyC85 said:


snowdog said:
A 10Hz drop probably won't be noticed by a lot of people 


I actually tend to agree with this. We'll see about the black levels, the newest "through the lens" video does look promising tho! 


Yes but a 120-144hz bump up will be 🙂


I don't... I don't think refresh rate works that way???

It's my understanding that the human eye (with the exception of exceptional individuals such as Fighter Pilots) just cannot see more than 60-80 frames per second, period... so for the average person there would literally be no difference between 80z and 2000hz.    Anything between would just be more frames than an average person could even see.

There's certainly no noticeable difference between 90hz and 80hz;   Oculus are the ones who invented the 90hz standard, and they were aiming high at the time, to play it safe..  if years of testing told them that 80hz or even 72hz were good enough, then I think they know better than anyone.  They wouldn't make that change if it actually risked turning off any significant number of users, after all..

Even semi-casual gamers can tell the difference between 60hz and 120hz on monitor gaming so I'm sure the same principles apply in VR. I personally can tell up to 120hz on a monitor, easily too. 120hz vs 144hz is tough for me and there is definitely diminishing returns past 120hz for me. But, there's a reason pretty much every pro gamer is on 240hz these days because the response times are so fast. There's a smoothness factor too. The higher the refresh, the more lifelike things move in game. At 60 hz things are jerky. 

This is a good vid to illustrate. 
https://youtu.be/Q1cmhZs1P54

I also fail to see how the Index's refresh rate is a problem... it can run at 80hz, 90hz, 120hz and 144hz? How is that a problem? If you can't push 144hz you simply lower the refresh rate to something you can hit. Solved. 

That said, I don't know if Index's higher refresh rate will really be worth the effort or not, but early reviewers seem to think so. I'll find out for myself in a month lol. 


OmegaM4N
Level 11


snowdog said:


OmegaM4N said:

^^^Yeah i would not worry too much about that refresh rate, i disable AWS when i am playing certain steam Vr games that are hogs and lock it to 45hz and it works fine, and that drop in RR might actually help with those steam games overal, we shall see. 😉



I always use OpenComposite myself, SteamVR has always been a bit of a clusterfuck with regards to performance for Rifts.


I have never head of that, OpenComposite?

pyroth309
Level 14

Wildt said:


CrashFu said:




JeremyC85 said:


snowdog said:
A 10Hz drop probably won't be noticed by a lot of people 


I actually tend to agree with this. We'll see about the black levels, the newest "through the lens" video does look promising tho! 


Yes but a 120-144hz bump up will be 🙂


I don't... I don't think refresh rate works that way???

It's my understanding that the human eye (with the exception of exceptional individuals such as Fighter Pilots) just cannot see more than 60-80 frames per second, period... so for the average person there would literally be no difference between 80z and 2000hz.    Anything between would just be more frames than an average person could even see.

There's certainly no noticeable difference between 90hz and 80hz;   Oculus are the ones who invented the 90hz standard, and they were aiming high at the time, to play it safe..  if years of testing told them that 80hz or even 72hz were good enough, then I think they know better than anyone.  They wouldn't make that change if it actually risked turning off any significant number of users, after all..


There's a lot of articles etc on the subject, but personally I find the difference between 60 and 120 to be huge.

There's some decent info here

"tl;dr: The human eye can physiologically detect up to 1000 frames per second. The average human, tasked with detecting what framerate he/she is looking at, can accurately guess up to around 150 fps. That is, they can see the difference in framerates all the way to 150 fps."


Ah your post didn't show up until after I posted. Yea exactly, I can see a difference at least to 144hz but I can't pin it down to about what it is above 120. It just looks fast lol. But I have 40 year old eyes. These pro gamer 18 year old kids can see upwards of 200 and above which is why 240hz monitors are all the rage. 

Mradr
Level 13

How Many FPS Can Your Eye See?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSHeYT2U70

What Is Video ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buSaywCF6E8

What Is The Resolution Of The Eye?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0

In short - we see faster frame rate - we just can't see the frame changes after a set amount of frames they start to blend togather creating transition frames. Something NV wants to use using black and gray scales for future technology such as Ray Track Engines. Yet, we can still see the data. This is why I keep bring up motion as a question between CV1 and Rift S and how it'll effect that. For most people - I dont think they will see a difference - but there are a large number of people even 10 frames can be felt like me between 60 and 75 Hz monitors when it comes to motion on screen.

I think the rumor started around the time LCD was taking over the display world because it was cheapest frame rate to hit that had the best over all performance.

Long answer look at the videos.

Also , Oculus wasn't the one that created the 90Hz stander - they was just the ones that made a big deal over it. I can't say who really came up with it - but searchers and even GPU companies had papers written talking about the 90Hz and above to really get the most out of VR. Actually - Oculus went backwards because they talk about trying to hit 120Hz for anything above the 4k screens mark in this one case. I am sure they will future support higher frame rates now that Valve is doing this and I am sure other HMD will follow suit as well as it opens the door not just for lower end customer hardware - but higher end customer hardware as well for a choice - and customers love choice.

There is a video of NV talking about how they want to hit 1000 frames for VR using a RT graphical pipeline instead because of the BIG benefits on how it'll work with our eyes and depth of field at that range.

JeremyC85
Level 7
Yea I definitely agree that the human eye can differentiate between 60fps, 120fps, etc. I have a 4k 60hz monitor and while it looks amazing and I love the resolution, I can tell a huge difference when looking at a 144hz monitor, etc.  

Comic_Book_Guy
Level 9

JeremyC85 said:

After giving it some thought, I ended up ordering the Rift S. It should greatly improve tracking in my specific area and the resolution bump will be nice. Just can't believe it has WORSE audio, black levels, and refresh rate


Worse audio is rectified using your own earbuds, black levels...you won't notice the difference vs the OG Rift, SPUD was impacting black levels and you didn't even know it. And refresh rate...the panel used in the S is lower persistence, again, you won't notice. It's a solid head set that gets rid of the messy sensors.

JeremyC85
Level 7
^^ That's why I pre-ordered one after all. I also really want to see Oculus succeed. I just wish the Rift S came with better audio out of the box and a little MORE of a bump in resolution.