Can't wait for pricing to be announced this is right up my street since I have tried Vr on occulus and psvr ,I've been waiting on generation next vr , before this I favoured the samsung headset but ill definitely be looking into vive pro.

theoneandonlymrkCan't wait for pricing to be announced this is right up my street since I have tried Vr on occulus and psvr ,I've been waiting on generation next vr , before this I favoured the samsung headset but ill definitely be looking into vive pro.

You are gonna need a Vega128 running at 2GHz core to power this sucker at a smooth 90FPS in demanding VR titles

xkm1948You are gonna need a Vega128 running at 2GHz core to power this sucker at a smooth 90FPS in demanding VR titles

Sweet two Vega x64 = 128 but under water both at 1700 should be fine :)

xkm1948You are gonna need a Vega128 running at 2GHz core to power this sucker at a smooth 90FPS in demanding VR titles

100% pure bullshit.

We're talking about 2880x1600@90Hz (~415MP/s*), while 2560x1440p@144Hz (~531MP/s) is the deal of yesterday and this year we march to 4K120+Hz (995+MP/s). Sure, you will need a very high-en computer to drive this, but of course Oculus/Vive was also priced for a second top VGA at the beginning and this, VR is only a secondary display to a PC.

* - MegaPixel/second

"Furthermore, the new Vive Pro abandons the 90 Hz LCD technology and makes the move to AMOLED technology for its panels"

Small error there, the Vive already uses AMOLED panels.

As Lauen mentioned above (beat me to it), the original Vive, as well as the Rift CV1 all use OLED screens, all produced by Samsung, all using PenTile subpixel arrangement.

@Kohl Baas, you are missing the fact that VR rendering always need to be higher than the native resolution due to the distortion correction. The Vive's default render target is 3024x1680 (1.4x in each dimension), while Rift CV1 used to have 2700x1600 default render target, and have switched to 2664x1586 in later SDK version, AFAIK. Even at these resolutions, you still need to further crank up supersampling in order to get sharp, crisp image, applying at least another 1.3-1.4x in each dimension (as far as 2.0x for some games, UE4-based mostly). And you need to maintain 90fps at minimum! In that scenario, we're talking 2160x1200x1.4x1.4x1.4x1.4@90Hz = 896 MP/s. The GTX1080 handles most games without issues in that mode.

Your comparison to flat monitor gaming isn't applicable, because VRR techs allow for fps dips to 60fps and below without ruining the experience (unless you're playing competitively, I suppose). VR is and will remain the most graphically demanding load for GPUs in the decades to come and will be the driver for innovation in (and will be dragged back by) GPU, interface and wireless technologies (among others like haptics, ergonomics, brain-computer interfaces, etc.).

The Vive Pro is said to have the exact same system requirements as the original Vive, which means they are either setting lower render target, using some form of fixed foveation or using other tricks and optimizations.

Just for reference, the current Pimax 8K prototype (which has a pair of 4k screens but receives just 2.5k signal for each, then upscales) has a render rate (including the default supersampling and @80Hz) of... 1741MP/s. Good luck with that ;)

Kohl Baas100% pure bullshit.

We're talking about 2880x1600@90Hz (~415MP/s*), while 2560x1440p@144Hz (~531MP/s) is the deal of yesterday and this year we march to 4K120+Hz (995+MP/s). Sure, you will need a very high-en computer to drive this, but of course Oculus/Vive was also priced for a second top VGA at the beginning and this, VR is only a secondary display to a PC.

* - MegaPixel/second

Zerofool@Kohl Baas, you are missing the fact that VR rendering always need to be higher than the native resolution due to the distortion correction. The Vive's default render target is 3024x1680 (1.4x in each dimension), while Rift CV1 used to have 2700x1600 default render target, and have switched to 2664x1586 in later SDK version, AFAIK. Even at these resolutions, you still need to further crank up supersampling in order to get sharp, crisp image, applying at least another 1.3-1.4x in each dimension (as far as 2.0x for some games, UE4-based mostly). And you need to maintain 90fps at minimum! In that scenario, we're talking 2160x1200x1.4x1.4x1.4x1.4@90Hz = 896 MP/s. The GTX1080 handles most games without issues in that mode.

Your comparison to flat monitor gaming isn't applicable, because VRR techs allow for fps dips to 60fps and below without ruining the experience (unless you're playing competitively, I suppose). VR is and will remain the most graphically demanding load for GPUs in the decades to come and will be the driver for innovation in (and will be dragged back by) GPU, interface and wireless technologies (among others like haptics, ergonomics, brain-computer interfaces, etc.).

The Vive Pro is said to have the exact same system requirements as the original Vive, which means they are either setting lower render target, using some form of fixed foveation or using other tricks and optimizations.

Just for reference, the current Pimax 8K prototype (which has a pair of 4k screens but receives just 2.5k signal for each, then upscales) has a render rate (including the default supersampling and @80Hz) of... 1741MP/s. Good luck with that ;)

Spoiler: pic, vid

Source:

I find educating some people who has no idea how VR works is a lot of work! So thank you @Zerofool for the nice science class

Also AMD GPU usually performs not so good in VR due to heavy utilization of DX11 based Unity VR engine. Hence my joke of Vega128.

:slap::laugh:

Just for reference Pimax 8k uses brainwarp, alternating rendering for each individual 4k screen. The result should be a vastly improved apparent refreshrate and lowered gpu load compared to directly rendering two 4k screens at the same time.
Vive has a long way to go. Couldnt find any information on the FOV of the new vive either, but if its similar to the current headset thats pretty damn poor. Higher fov will improve the immersion over higher resolution for that headset in my opinion.

VR titles are far less complex in terms of geometry than a typical AAA desktop title. Yes, the higher res and high refresh rate are extremely difficult or unobtainable at the moment if trying to run current high end games, but this isn't what we are playing. The most demanding typical desktop games even available for my Rift would be something like Dirt Rally, Project Cars 2, or perhaps the upcoming Fallout 4/Skyrim. The former two titles have absolutely no issue at all playing on my HTPC with an i5 4590S and a GTX 980. A bump up in res may possibly affect it a little, but most certainly is not out of range of a 1080. It seems people keep referring to the GPU requirements based on resolution and frame rate as if we are playing modern high end games on ultra setting, and this is just not the case, as VR versions of modern desktop titles do not exist.

Still looking forward to this ,any news on price incoming:)