10-31-2019 04:04 PM - edited 04-02-2022 09:06 AM
It seems like we'll get:
Maybe reduced power consumption due to 7nm. And maybe the best - if it's true:
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/68455/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-ti-more-vram-way-faster-cheaper/index.h...
Expected - maybe - in the first half of 2020:
https://wccftech.com/nvidia-next-generation-ampere-7nm-graphics-cards-landing-1h-2020/
Some shots of RTX 3090s:
Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"
Solved! Go to Solution.
01-30-2021 06:25 PM
01-31-2021 01:38 AM
02-02-2021 04:51 AM
02-02-2021 05:33 AM
02-15-2021 02:32 AM
Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"
02-15-2021 03:39 AM
02-15-2021 06:07 AM
TomCgcmfc said:
@RuneSR2 I think the difference is mainly because the Vive Pro effective res as shown on the summary pic is 2016 x 2240 while the G2 is 3168 x 3996. So, ~4.5m pixels vs 9.8m pixels and therefore the results seem logical to me. If the G2 was rendered at native res (2160x2160) I'm pretty sure the results would be pretty close.
I think that the main differences between the two headsets is that the V.pro is OLED and it also has a much higher FOV (esp. vertical). Needless to say, the tracking with Valve 2.0 base stations is a tad better, lol!
Oculus Rift CV1, Valve Index & PSVR2, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 16TB SSD
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"
02-15-2021 10:12 AM
RuneSR2 said:
TomCgcmfc said:
@RuneSR2 I think the difference is mainly because the Vive Pro effective res as shown on the summary pic is 2016 x 2240 while the G2 is 3168 x 3996. So, ~4.5m pixels vs 9.8m pixels and therefore the results seem logical to me. If the G2 was rendered at native res (2160x2160) I'm pretty sure the results would be pretty close.
I think that the main differences between the two headsets is that the V.pro is OLED and it also has a much higher FOV (esp. vertical). Needless to say, the tracking with Valve 2.0 base stations is a tad better, lol!
Fully agree - BabelTechReviews does mention that the G2 needs more res than G1 due to the new lenses:Finally, using the OpenVR benchmark at the same settings, the G2’s display resolution is 2160×2160 – the same as the G1 – but the SteamVR render resolution increases to 3168×3096 and the average framerate drops to 36.24 FPS because of the new lenses.
Still, SteamVR res 100% is probably what many users will use - and HP and Valve have decided upon optimal res for res 100%, so I do think it's fair to compare all hmds using SteamVR res 100%. Or we could choose 150 or 200 % for all, probably would not change much. Surely comparing apples to apples isn't easy, lol.
02-15-2021 11:25 AM
i7 8700k; 5ghz (water cooled), Asus Rog Strix Z370-E Gaming, Corsair 270R case, EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra, 32 GB Corsair Veng DDR4 2666 Ghz, Adata SX900 SSD, 1TB M.2 SSD, Adata Su800 SSD, Adata SU650 SSD, BarraCuda 2TB HD, Toshiba 3tB HD, Rift (dead), Rift S, Win 10 Pro 2004, Inateck KT4006 USB3.0
02-15-2021 12:52 PM
TomCgcmfc said:
RuneSR2 said:
TomCgcmfc said:
@RuneSR2 I think the difference is mainly because the Vive Pro effective res as shown on the summary pic is 2016 x 2240 while the G2 is 3168 x 3996. So, ~4.5m pixels vs 9.8m pixels and therefore the results seem logical to me. If the G2 was rendered at native res (2160x2160) I'm pretty sure the results would be pretty close.
I think that the main differences between the two headsets is that the V.pro is OLED and it also has a much higher FOV (esp. vertical). Needless to say, the tracking with Valve 2.0 base stations is a tad better, lol!
Fully agree - BabelTechReviews does mention that the G2 needs more res than G1 due to the new lenses:Finally, using the OpenVR benchmark at the same settings, the G2’s display resolution is 2160×2160 – the same as the G1 – but the SteamVR render resolution increases to 3168×3096 and the average framerate drops to 36.24 FPS because of the new lenses.
Still, SteamVR res 100% is probably what many users will use - and HP and Valve have decided upon optimal res for res 100%, so I do think it's fair to compare all hmds using SteamVR res 100%. Or we could choose 150 or 200 % for all, probably would not change much. Surely comparing apples to apples isn't easy, lol.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the 100% SteamVR % pixel density with the latest SteamVR beta's for the G2 has been re-adjusted to be like the G1 ( = approx native resolution, 2160x2160). I think you need to consider total pixels, as well as refresh rates, when comparing VR headset performance. But, like you say, with anything VR it's often hard to accurately compare apples to apples.
I cannot say that I'm very impressed with BabelTechReviews. Pretty thin gravy imho.
Every day I continue to be impressed with what my rtx3090 can do and I'm so thankful that I've had the resources to buy one. I'm still using stock clocks because I have a hard time imagining why I need more gpu performance and I'm concerned that overclocking it might tax my corsair gold 750w psu a little too much. Also, I'm not sure OC'ing is worth much with a 3090 right now anyway. Maybe in the future when we get 6-8Ghz cpu's.