14 ms·

Between this, the 2080's performance being 'eh', the vive pro having a very mixed reaction (mostly price), and the pimax sets running face-first into gpu limiti

Between this, the 2080's performance being 'eh', the vive pro having a very mixed reaction (mostly price), and the pimax sets running face-first into gpu limitiations, PC VR is in a bit of a slump. The best thing to buy today is almost exactly what it was a year and a half ago.

TomMarius 8y ago
So GPUs are the bottleneck? Are there any roadblocks in GPU development we'll hit soon?
- icelancer 8y ago
  > So GPUs are the bottleneck? Not really, no. It's pixel density and refresh rate as always, and that is driven from the display. > Are there any roadblocks in GPU development we'll hit soon? We already have. The 2080 is a negligible improvement to the 1080ti platform with regards to compute power.
  - Retric 8y ago
    2080 Ti has a lot more power than the 1080ti, it just spends most of it on ray tracing. Consider the 2080 Ti has 18.6 transistors the 1080 Ti has 12 billion. The issue nVidia saw is games are less limited by polygon counts and 4k is still not mainstream so they needed something else to keep the treadmill going.
    - fyfy18 8y ago
      4K is a bit of a catch 22 situation - hardcore gamers don't want 4K as the GPUs don't have enough performance for it. Monitors don't support higher refresh rates as there is no demand from gamers for a 144Hz display. Intel iGPUs have supported it comfortably for the last couple of generations, but Windows is still a POS when dealing with 4K, so businesses aren't going to bother upgrading their trusty Dell 24" 1080p monitors anytime soon.
- koiz 8y ago
  A little bit but foveated rendering is really the tech we need.
theandrewbailey 8y ago
I don't think hardware is to blame. There are no killer apps that make people justify strapping a box to their face.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  The facebox isn't really the problem, it's the price and the equipment. You need a highish-end PC in addition to the VR rig itself, towers for sensors/ir lights, etc. I think the Quest will probably be a game changer here, being a stand alone self-contained unit at a reasonable price point.
  - stonith 8y ago
    I guess you could include it in 'price and equipment' but for me I simply don't have space in my apartment to do any of the interesting things with VR (eg I really enjoyed SuperHot VR), and it doesn't seem much of an improvement if I'm just sitting in my chair with it. Floor space is extremely expensive in almost every big Western city at the moment.
- djohnston 8y ago
  agreed. it has nothing to do with hardware. all the games i've played on my oculus lose their allure in less than 20 hours.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Honestly, I suspect that few people actually want VR. We see this “revolution” promise in entertainment occasionally. Sometimes it’s real (tv, video games), sometimes it’s not. Anyone here buy a 3D TV? Do they still make them? From what I’ve seen, VR headsets are very hard on the human brain, since they confuse our multiple range sensing systems. Smoother experiences help, but until we find a better way to adjust the focal plane it’s going to be a continuous issue. I personally think they’re overhyped. They demo great, but I have yet to see any usage that would justify spending spending as much one one as I did my TV. Every time I’ve tried one it’s been novel for a few minutes, but afterwards I have had 0 interest in ever owning one.

TomMarius 8y ago

So GPUs are the bottleneck? Are there any roadblocks in GPU development we'll hit soon?

icelancer 8y ago
> So GPUs are the bottleneck? Not really, no. It's pixel density and refresh rate as always, and that is driven from the display. > Are there any roadblocks in GPU development we'll hit soon? We already have. The 2080 is a negligible improvement to the 1080ti platform with regards to compute power.
- Retric 8y ago
  2080 Ti has a lot more power than the 1080ti, it just spends most of it on ray tracing. Consider the 2080 Ti has 18.6 transistors the 1080 Ti has 12 billion. The issue nVidia saw is games are less limited by polygon counts and 4k is still not mainstream so they needed something else to keep the treadmill going.
  - fyfy18 8y ago
    4K is a bit of a catch 22 situation - hardcore gamers don't want 4K as the GPUs don't have enough performance for it. Monitors don't support higher refresh rates as there is no demand from gamers for a 144Hz display. Intel iGPUs have supported it comfortably for the last couple of generations, but Windows is still a POS when dealing with 4K, so businesses aren't going to bother upgrading their trusty Dell 24" 1080p monitors anytime soon.
koiz 8y ago
A little bit but foveated rendering is really the tech we need.

theandrewbailey 8y ago

I don't think hardware is to blame. There are no killer apps that make people justify strapping a box to their face.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
The facebox isn't really the problem, it's the price and the equipment. You need a highish-end PC in addition to the VR rig itself, towers for sensors/ir lights, etc. I think the Quest will probably be a game changer here, being a stand alone self-contained unit at a reasonable price point.
- stonith 8y ago
  I guess you could include it in 'price and equipment' but for me I simply don't have space in my apartment to do any of the interesting things with VR (eg I really enjoyed SuperHot VR), and it doesn't seem much of an improvement if I'm just sitting in my chair with it. Floor space is extremely expensive in almost every big Western city at the moment.
djohnston 8y ago
agreed. it has nothing to do with hardware. all the games i've played on my oculus lose their allure in less than 20 hours.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
village-idiot 8y ago
Honestly, I suspect that few people actually want VR. We see this “revolution” promise in entertainment occasionally. Sometimes it’s real (tv, video games), sometimes it’s not. Anyone here buy a 3D TV? Do they still make them? From what I’ve seen, VR headsets are very hard on the human brain, since they confuse our multiple range sensing systems. Smoother experiences help, but until we find a better way to adjust the focal plane it’s going to be a continuous issue. I personally think they’re overhyped. They demo great, but I have yet to see any usage that would justify spending spending as much one one as I did my TV. Every time I’ve tried one it’s been novel for a few minutes, but afterwards I have had 0 interest in ever owning one.