cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

So glad I went with the Fury X cards

purifier82
Protege
Apparently nVidia doesn't support async compute, so theoretically AMD is 40% faster and has way less latency, now I fully believe the claims in the K&L GE Neuron video, that LiquidVR is the key for us!
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... t_support/
Si vis pacem para bellum
65 REPLIES 65

cybereality
Grand Champion
Holy smokes!!
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X | MSI X370 Titanium | G.Skill 16GB DDR4 3200 | EVGA SuperNOVA 1000 | Corsair Hydro H110i Gigabyte RX Vega 64 x2 | Samsung 960 Evo M.2 500GB | Seagate FireCuda SSHD 2TB | Phanteks ENTHOO EVOLV

RonsonPL
Heroic Explorer

Does it influence pixel fillrate performance? Texturing with basic lighting? Unique geometry performance?
If it's just the shaders, then they might even be 400% faster, but in games that choose the geometry, resolution, downsampling and good texutures, over shader and postprocess effects, this 400% might change to 4%.

On the other hand, if lessons from mobile VR are to be thrown into the mud, then we might just as well have 99% saturation of VR content in 2016 with UE 4.0 and other heavily shader-oriented engines.

I still think forward rendering should be the way to go. Tons of not needed filters and "heavy" shaders might simply block the low end PC users from using the VR at high framerate, low latency and best possible resolution. It might be like this:
Want MSAAx4 and downsampling? You need 980ti.
The same with forward engine? gtx780 will be enough. Or even 680/770.



So the question is: What does it really mean? Is it more suited for low latency overal, even when running a HL2 (vanilla) game for example, or just in games with render path flogged by all that shader usage?

I'd like to hear the surprising info, because when Nvidia releases a 1 year deleyed GPU, puts a "gtx980ti" sticker on the "gtx880" sticker, and asks 200% of normal price, it doesn't take a genius to say we really need AMD to get back to the competition, because with those sick prices we have now, PC VR will suffer. Badly.

Does anyone know how Epic implemented forward rendering in UE4 finally? Last time I read about it, it looked like the switch was partially "teoretical" with some performance wasted anyway, since only the effects of calculations were disabled instead of the actual calculations. I might've understood that wrong, though, and I've not read anything about UE since then, so there's a huge chance I'm wrong on this one. But I'd like someone to share the info. Would be good to know.



edit: I seems it is like I assumed. It's a change only for compute tasks. Deferred lighting, postprocess filters. Nothing big in terms of crucial GPU performance for VR (which would be highest possible res with tons of textured geometry).
I happen to differ with most, that say it's not important how low-poly your scene is, as long as it lit realistically.
Well... I enjoyed lots of games without realistic lighing, getting great immersion levels, just by using stereoscopic 3D with low persistence. For me it's about consistence. If nothing in the virtual world doesn't fit, it's possible to get great level of immersion even with forward rendering and without realistic shading. I'd prefer a huge world with lots of objects in the distance, instead of better lighing and the flood of the same cardboard-looking games with fog 100m from virtual eyes.
I think anyone who remembers PS2 gaming on 50/60Hz CRT TVs, would agree.

Therefore, from my point of view - this async compute is not that important for VR.
Not an Oculus hater, but not a fan anymore. Still lots of respect for the team-Carmack, Abrash. Oculus is driven by big corporation principles now. That brings painful effects already, more to come in the future. This is not the Oculus I once cheered for.

willste
Explorer
Good to see AMD staying competitive.

tamonte
Honored Guest
Looks like I'll be going back to the red team... 😛

Good news that AMD seems to have the upperhand in VR.

Still I'm gonna hang on to my gtx 970 till the next AMDs Rx 400 14nm series comes next year, it should be da bomb 🙂

VizionVR
Rising Star
"tamonte" wrote:
Looks like I'll be going back to the red team... 😛

Good news that AMD seems to have the upperhand in VR.

Still I'm gonna hang on to my gtx 970 till the next AMDs Rx 400 14nm series comes next year, it should be da bomb 🙂


Same here, since 970 seems to be the preferred goal for most devs right now. I'm sure it wont stay that way for long as competition ramps up.
Not a Rift fanboi. Not a Vive fanboi. I'm a VR fanboi. Get it straight.

AntDX3162
Heroic Explorer
"purifier82" wrote:
Apparently nVidia doesn't support async compute, so theoretically AMD is 40% faster and has way less latency, now I fully believe the claims in the K&L GE Neuron video, that LiquidVR is the key for us!
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... t_support/


but nvidia is way faster in the DX11 games and there is no DX12 games so..

plus can sell 980 ti to get the new 1xxx series with full async compute lol

plus no g-sync sux
facebook.com/AntDX316

pixel67
Explorer
I wouldn't sell your nvidia card just yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comment ... a_cant_do/

purifier82
Protege
I'll keep the 980ti in my portable rig, if DCS 1.5 still won't support amd cards for the Rift (and VIVE) this month I'll use it for that 8-)
Si vis pacem para bellum

AntDX3162
Heroic Explorer
"pixel67" wrote:
I wouldn't sell your nvidia card just yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comment ... a_cant_do/


no idea what was said in that article

but if AMD is faster than nvidia at dx12 of 2% but 30% slower than nvidia on dx11 and cost more......

the problem is like when the news is heard and it looks like AMD is 500% faster but the reality is 2%..
facebook.com/AntDX316