Wednesday, May 11th 2016
No Takers for VR: TechPowerUp New GPU Survey
The latest TechPowerUp front-page survey springs up some interesting findings on what our readers are most looking forward to, with the upcoming GPUs. Timed ahead of market availability of new GPUs from both NVIDIA and AMD, this poll gains relevance. At the time of writing of this article, we had received 4,650 votes over a week-long period, which amounts to a reasonable sample size. Some of the findings were surprising.
An overwhelming 60 percent of the respondents find price/performance most important. Interestingly, only 7 percent find efficiency/noise important. The second most popular choice, at 14 percent, was "4K Playability" (the ability for the GPU to play games at 4K Ultra HD resolution, at playable frame-rates). Our readers are seven times more likely to invest on 4K Ultra HD monitors (which start at $300 if you look in the right places), than picking up a VR (virtual reality) headset. A negligible 2 percent of our readers find VR most important.
The battle for next-gen APIs seems to be going Microsoft's way, as DirectX 12 excites 7 percent of our readers, compared to 3 percent for Vulkan. More people seem to be looking forward to Vulkan than VR. A sizable 5 percent of the respondents are cynical and are just happy to have more games to play with on their existing hardware.
An overwhelming 60 percent of the respondents find price/performance most important. Interestingly, only 7 percent find efficiency/noise important. The second most popular choice, at 14 percent, was "4K Playability" (the ability for the GPU to play games at 4K Ultra HD resolution, at playable frame-rates). Our readers are seven times more likely to invest on 4K Ultra HD monitors (which start at $300 if you look in the right places), than picking up a VR (virtual reality) headset. A negligible 2 percent of our readers find VR most important.
97 Comments on No Takers for VR: TechPowerUp New GPU Survey
It's a use case scenario. By definition of toy I mean something that's cool to play with for a few then put it in the closet because there isn't much other use to it, like most kids do with toys they're bored with. Make sense now? I turn my PC on and use it quite literally every day for hours, and one Titan X gets used at work quite a bit. The DK2 and in time CV1/Vive sit on the floor next to my desk until I decide I want to use it. Now, take the other half of my post you decided to gloss over to make sense of what I said and the POINT of the post. Some people would rather utilize that disposable income for something more worthwhile. It's not whining about cost, it's that it's a trinket that you get bored with quite easily because there isn't a ton to do with it right now. The like of which most people here are afraid of spending 600/800 on. Something that might become defunct later on which is a possibility because it is such a niche product and will be for quite some time if it doesn't catch on with mainstream pricing. I don't mind playing with expensive toys and admitting I may have wasted money on something. Others don't share that same thought process, or may prioritize their money to other areas. Some might not even be able to afford the cost of VR at the early adopter's rate. Just because YOU can doesn't mean others can, and in that case might not share the same gungho enthusiasm as you.
How many people here have a Fury X which cost about ~$650 USD?
How many people here have a GTX 980 Ti which cost about ~$600 USD (give or take)?
How many of you have one of the above cards or similar running in SLI / Xfire,....?
How many people here have a lower end card set running in SLI / Xfire like a GTX 760,....?
How many people here have multiple monitors like a triple monitor setup?
How many people here have one or more 4K displays?
All of this cost money and I see no reason to look at modern VR as an undue expense with respect to gaming when looking at some of the hardware people in these forums are sporting. Having said all that, I try to reserve judgment on VR until I have had a chance to have a proper firsthand experience with it. When I say that I mean production / retail hardware not some unfinished prototype DK1. Making any kind of definitive decision based on zero experience or unfinished hardware is questionable at best.
With that in mind, there are or there will be retail locations where people can test out the various modern VR offerings:
HTC Now Offering Live Vive Demos in Microsoft Stores, Gamestop Locations NationWide
Oculus Rift will be in stores long before many pre-orders are fulfilled
Sony will let you sample PlayStation VR months before October launch
live.oculus.com/
Just a little heads up on the live.oculus link. When I first heard about it (May 2nd) there were a few available time slots in my area but I opted not to go through the trouble of scheduling a demo. Today there are "NO" available appointment slots in my area (preferred location anyway) until May 26th,.........which is what I thought would happen.
There is no doubt that there are a lot of people interested in the tech and trying it for themselves (whether they intend to spend money on it now or not).
Personally I kind of want to go try it just so I can see something like this :)
The PC is circling the bowl drain, edging closer to the vortex
But we disagree on the future of the PC ;)
I remember when 4K was first rolling out. Youtube video streams demoing 4K hardware or 4K video streams viewed by people using 1920x1080 and 2560x1440 monitors doesn't convey the experance faithfully at all. Therefore they have little to no frame of reference unless they have actually used the hardware. People can say a 4K monitor is too expensive on its own or that the GPU horse power needed to push 4K is too costly or whatever. None of this means that a better or a singularly unique experience wouldn't be had if all the requirements have been adequately addressed.
lots of people are cautious and are not prepared to potentially waste Money on Tech that is not yet proven and Viable ( as in ongoing support )
you only have to look at the SALES Debacle that Was 3D TV
Where is the media Content For 3D That was Promised ( A Few Part time 3 D channels don't count ).
Give it a FEW YEARS to Establish a PROVEN Track Record.
EDIT
Did you buy into
Cybermaxx (1994)
The Cybermaxx was the fresh new sibling to the Stuntmaster. It came with full solid head tracking, a stereoscopic 3d display in the form of two 0.7″ color active matrix LCD screens, and was priced at under $699.00. There were also a fair few games to be played on the Cybermaxx, such as Doom II, Duke Nukem and Wolfenstein, to name a few. Although this seemed like a good formula for a Virtual Reality headset at the time, the Cybermaxx still failed to gain any real traction, and ultimately failed to take off.
or
VFX-1 (1995)
The VFX-1 was arguably the most stand out Virtual Reality product of the early era. It was developed by Forte Technologies Inc who premiered the VFX-1 as its first product in 1995. It retailed at $695, putting it nicely under $1,000, which was dramatically cheaper than some of the professional Virtual Reality headsets available at the time.
The device consisted of three main components, the headset, a hand held controller call the CyberPuck and an ISA interface card called the VIP board. The VIP board was the heart of the operation, and was used to route the data between the three of the devices. In total the head gear weighed 2 1/2 lbs, and adopted a virtual orientation system that used the earth’s magnetic field to track movement, similar to a compass. a downside to this was that the device had to be kept and away from large metal objects, and had to calibrated for a user’s specific geographical location.
To play texture mapped games you would have needed a pentium II processor, and good few megabytes of ram. Although most PC games didn’t offer support for the headset, and required additional drivers to be installed, like head tracking and stereoscopic 3d.
All said and done though, this may have been by far the best Virtual Reality Headset of the time, but still didn’t manage to hit the ground running. This may have been due to the limitations of graphics during this time. Which is something that could probably said for the entire spectrum of Virtual Reality in the 90’s. The idea’s, and science fiction dreams of Tron like Virtual interactions, may have been running too fast for the technology to keep up. So are we at a time now where the technology has caught up with the dreams of Virtual interaction?
The modern VR movement has its issues to be sure. That doesn't necessarily mean anything though.
I'll say this, when I was kid I wanted a ColecoVision Adam computer expansion unit but never got it. In some ways this might have been one of the worst computers ever made for the early (circa 1980) home computer market and it wasn't cheap either. Early production issues, a jump in the reported release price and more lead to it ruining ColecoVision which ran out of business a few years later IIRC.
However, I have recently found that there is an Adam movement and some people actually still use these things. Try and buy a complete ColecoVision Adam system on e-Bay and you might be looking at ~$1500 USD (for a ~33 year old computer that cost ~$700 when new (adjustment for inflation not calculated)).
My point is, none of the history behind the Adma means that I wouldn't have gotten a lot out of it had I been able to acquire one despite it being defunct early in its life cycle (like many people who still cherish this peace of American history).
Having said that I have not ordered an HTC Vive or Oculus Rift. I'd like to but I'm not sure that I will. I have ordered the Sony PlayStation VR as a gift for my kids just like the PS4 was a gift for them. I consider it a toy and I hope they like it. If I like it too then bonus. I'm not expecting the world from it and it didn't break the bank at ~$400 USD especially around the holiday season.
But when it comes to nvidia vs amd battle the only thing nvidia fans can say is heat and power efficiency on Nvidia side...
And what most people want according to the poll doesn't matter.
Khronos is in a good position to create an unifying API and so is Microsoft. Until there is an unifying API, I can't see VR as a good investment.
Think of how useful those HD-DVD players are these days. Rift and/or Vive are in danger of becoming the same.
Your point is well taken though. When I pre-ordered the Sony PlayStation VR I was thinking, "what happens to this thing when Sony moves on to a new gaming platform?". Generally speaking such devices like the eye camera or controllers get updated with the new platform and you cannot reuse them when you upgrade.
Case in point: the developers of Consortium: The Tower have a Rift so if they pursue developing VR, it's probably going to run the best with Rift. Unless the developer goes out and buys a Vive and optimizes the code for it as well, Vive is going to offer an inferior experience to Rift in the game.
24 hz and subsampling solors and other BS methods that will kill your experience.. Tue UHD 4k 60 hz+ onry.
As for VR.. Not wearing some dam face mask to play my games.. Never gonna happen. That design is not going to fly for the masses.Never understood why Sony never got into the windows game. They'd of made a killing on PS controllers and cables alone.
The specs for the PlayStation VR are obviously lower but they are also obviously supposed to be lower. We all know that you can get a better gaming experance on a PC that cost 3x or 4x the amount of a PS4 so lower specs are consistent with the PS4 platform.
Having said that, even the more premium Vive and Rift still have a screen-door effect duo to the relatively low resolution. That is a design flaw for all of these VR headsets but it can be partially forgiven due to the GPU requirements to do better.
If HTC and Oculus had increased the resolution it would have made their offerings better suited to future GPU upgrades with more prowess down the line. As it stands now, I can see upgraded products on the horizon.
How many of you have one of the above cards or similar running in SLI / Xfire,....?
How many people here have one or more 4K displays?
___________________________________________________________
Yes, to all three of the above, but I'm probably not going to jump on VR tech. I have tried it, and while it was OK, I didn't think that it was worth the expense. Maybe I'll consider it again in a few years.
I like my 4K screen and the two 980Ti cards pushing it around. (one was $400 and the other was $500)
4K gaming is worth the money to me, VR, not so much.