A high-end PC will be needed for the best Oculus Rift experience

[gregzeng]

Some of us stopped using desktop & tower computers years ago. We have desktop replacements now. The next question-answer is: which notebook or tablet computer is good enough now?

My three year-old notebook has a I7 GPU, so its Intel GPU is not good enough: Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 [Display adapter].
Also not good enough? the onboard: NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M [Display adapter] ??

The cheapest upgrade to my Dell XPS-15 has "Intel® HD Graphics 4600" $1,600 USD. The updated replacement (CPU, HDD) has "NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 750M 2GB GDDR5", costing at least $2,150 USD. All of these have at least two USB3 ports.

The newest PCs will have perhaps just one USB-c port. Will this be good enough, even with an external USB3 hub?

 

[The Chad]

I will just wait for the Microsoft HoloLens . The Oculus rift has been in development forever and when I demoed one it gave me a really bad headache after messing around with it for about a half hour. Hololens seems less likely to cause the headache/ motion sickness problems found in many VR head displays.

 

[Peter Farkas]

What's gonna be the price on that?

 

[LNCPapa]

I think the HoloLens is going to be considerably more expensive as it's not just a display but an entire computer. The processing is handled within the unit itself and it isn't dependent on anything but your network. I'm trying to get my hands on one as soon as I can.

 

[Fokissed]

I'm using a DK2 with a GTX 680 4Gb and an i5-2500K. I've noticed a few big issues preventing this from becoming mainstream anytime soon:

Games being 'forced' with drivers such as vorpx are mediocre at best, even after hours of tinkering. Games with native support, such as Elite: Dangerous, Assetto Corsa, Minecraft (Minecrift mod), HL2, and TF2 work with little hassle.

For an experience that isn't completely nauseating or headache inducing, the tracking needs to be accurate (games with native support), and FPS needs to be a constant 75Hz. Inaccurate tracking will cause motion sickness in record time, and the same goes with <75 FPS.

The hardware requirements are indeed colossal. My rig can push Elite: Dangerous at ultra settings 1080p over 60 FPS, very smooth. However in the Rift, I have to drop the settings to low and even then I'm only getting ~45 FPS in stations. My guess is that the DK2 is equivalent to running a 960x1080 monitor at 150+ FPS (75Hz for each eye), which my rig seems to have an issue doing.

75 FPS sounds reasonable, but 150 FPS MINIMUM is what is needed to have a good experience.

The DK2's resolution for each eye is 960x1080, which doesn't sound too bad. It's horrible. Most of the screen is either outside of the round lens, or is aberrated because it isn't in the center of the lens. You end up looking at the relatively few pixels in the center, which is kinda like playing the game at 640x480. In Assetto Corsa this means the corners are hard to spot, and in Elite: Dangerous the text is all but legible. You can always lean forward to read the text, but it's tedious. Minecraft isn't bad.

Besides the issues noted above, it is an AMAZING experience. I have no doubt that this is the future, and I'm hoping sooner rather than later.

 

[deemon]

Nope. But will pick up Vive at launch.

 

[wiyosaya]

I was considering an Oculus at launch, but with these hardware requirements, I think I wait until my next build.

 

[deemon]

Weird title.
Higher mid-range GPU + midrange CPU + low-to-average amount of RAM = high-end PC? Not really.

 

[cliffordcooley]

The thread title goes without saying for any game title or display device. Nothing weird about that.

 

[Vocnar]

You have a good enough gpu but cpu no.

That FX chip will probably have to be running at 5Ghz.

You should have went with a 4GB 290x and nonover priced 2400 mhz DDR3 memory.

The savings there would have been enough to go haswell i5.

I originally had a Sapphire Tri-X R9 290X OC 4 GB card but I read that Crossfire/SLI only use the RAM from the First card. So thats why I got the Sapphire Vapor-X R9 290X OC 8 GB card to use for my First card, for RAM purposes. In June I plan on getting a MSI R9 390X OC MSI Lightning card when they launch to replace my 290X's (going to give my brother the Vapor-X (he has a 7770 OC) & the Tri-X to my son (he has a GTX 750)) I was planing on upgrading my FX8320 Black to a FX9590 Black because soon the Price will drop to the $150 - $175 USD range & I dont have to buy a new MB or RAM just the new chip. When the NEW AMD Zen chips come out I " MIGHT " look at getting one of those IF money permits. But would the New GPU (R9 390X OC & FX9590 Black) be a better upgrade or spend the extra $300.00 USD on a MSI MB to get a I7 4790K & the $500 - $700 for the 390X ? (getting the GPU for Star Citizen is my plan for THIS PC)

 

[cliffordcooley]

I read that Crossfire/SLI only use the RAM from the First card.

Memory is used on all cards. Memory is cloned across all cards. Each card processes an equal portion of memory. The card with the least amount of memory will dictate the total amount available. But each card will process information using their own memory addresses. Xfire/SLI simply dictates which of those addresses are processed.

As for your AMD or Intel question, I'm biased toward Intel, and currently don't see AMD as an equal competitor. I'm hoping that changes with the release of AMD's Zen CPU. I will say if you are currently AMD, I don't see it worth changing platforms just to be with Intel.

 

[Vocnar]

Thanks for the reply