And many are stating that is useless. Who cares about being at the minimum spec for VR when you can't afford the headset? By the time you can, you're going to be below the specs for the actual games out. Not like there are many games out right now....Who wants to buy the minimum for tech they don't plan on using for at least a couple of years? Not me.
VR is too niche to matter to most $200 buyers.
People will buy the VR glasses. Go home plug them into their computer and realize their GPU is way underpowered for VR. And then they will find rx480.Is $200 too little to matter to VR buyers? You're putting the cart before the horse. People aren't going to buy VR because of the 480. It's the other way around. They'll buy the 480 because of VR. Or, they'll buy it because it's the best performance you can get @ $200. Or both.
People will buy the VR glasses. Go home plug them into their computer and realize their GPU is way underpowered for VR. And then they will find rx480.
Or system integrators (OEMs) will sell VR ready computers with an rx480 provided.
VR games with CPU FPS bounds below 90 FPS won't be very common.Another point, which our esteemed compatriot RS has impounded into our heads, is that at VR resolutions of 2160x1200, which isn't far removed from 1080p, most people with even rx480 are going to be cpu bottlenecked. VR is unusual because it requires consistent performance above 90fps at low resolution => higher cpu requirements than most appreciate for the highest detail settings.
VR games with CPU FPS bounds below 90 FPS won't be very common.
CPU bottlenecks are a problem in games that aren't targeted to specific performance levels at a specific resolution, or in games that are designed to take advantage of more than 4 cores (console ports). VR games are 90 FPS at ~1080p right now, and they'll be designed to do that with a 290 and a 4690K, and since there are very traditional graphics settings that affect CPU resources, the focus will be on the GPU only. Highest settings has little to do with CPU bottlenecks.In my mind, that is tautologically equivalent to saying VR games that take advantage of gpu power above rx480 won't be common. Cpu bottleneck at low res and high fps is real.
CPU bottlenecks are a problem in games that aren't targeted to specific performance levels at a specific resolution, or in games that are designed to take advantage of more than 4 cores (console ports). VR games are 90 FPS at ~1080p right now, and they'll be designed to do that with a 290 and a 4690K, and since there are very traditional graphics settings that affect CPU resources, the focus will be on the GPU only. Highest settings has little to do with CPU bottlenecks.
The choice of CPU is really not that important; single-thread performance is what's important, and nearly every Intel CPU performs fine in that regard. Using 6+ threads is a task that I don't think most VR developers are going to take on when they don't need to.
It's all about the software, and VR games are designed with plenty of restrictions and targets in mind.
The next-gen VR games will be DX12/Vulkan because it allows better control of rendering for developers who are chasing fine controls to deliver smooth frames to both eye, and capable of fast async timewarp to not miss a head motion sync.
Current stuff is vomit inducing, just take some time to read reviews if you don't believe it.
It's a maturing tech, current GPUs shouldn't even be marketed for VR since it's so niche, but what they should really market instead is the future-proofing of architectures that will mean your upcoming investment will be relevant when the next wave of VR games & headsets are out.
Another point, which our esteemed compatriot RS has impounded into our heads, is that at VR resolutions of 2160x1200
The next-gen VR games will be DX12/Vulkan because it allows better control of rendering for developers who are chasing fine controls to deliver smooth frames to both eye, and capable of fast async timewarp to not miss a head motion sync.
Current stuff is vomit inducing, just take some time to read reviews if you don't believe it.
It's a maturing tech, current GPUs shouldn't even be marketed for VR since it's so niche, but what they should really market instead is the future-proofing of architectures that will mean your upcoming investment will be relevant when the next wave of VR games & headsets are out.
Release notes:
preliminary GPU information for AMD Radeon RX 470 (Polaris 10 Pro)
preliminary GPU information for AMD Radeon RX 480 (Polaris 10 XT)
AIDA64 Extreme Version: 5.70.3869 beta (Jun 12, 2016)
www.aida64.com/downloads/N2I5NWNkNzc=
In past generations 'XT' referred to the full chip. Fiji XT (Fury X), Grenada XT/Hawaii XT (R9 390X), Antigua XT/Tonga XT (R9 380X).
Radeon RX 460 (Polaris 11?) @ 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
Source: Baidu.
AIDA64 Extreme Version: 5.70.3869 beta (Jun 12, 2016)
www.aida64.com/downloads/N2I5NWNkNzc=
In past generations 'XT' referred to the full chip. Fiji XT (Fury X), Grenada XT/Hawaii XT (R9 390X), Antigua XT/Tonga XT (R9 380X).
Radeon RX 460 (Polaris 11?) @ 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme
Source: Baidu.
This would put the 460 into 270/270X territory?
People will buy the VR glasses. Go home plug them into their computer and realize their GPU is way underpowered for VR. And then they will find rx480.
Or system integrators (OEMs) will sell VR ready computers with an rx480 provided.
No one will blow $800 on VR glasses without checking their pc is good enough and the first check will be the gpu. No one buy a new a RX480 to use with VR because they'll buy a much better gpu. No one will seriously buy an RX480 hoping to get VR glasses one day "when they are cheap" because by that time the RX480 will be old hat and way beneath the min VR spec.
Just accept it - trying to sell the RX480 for use with VR is dumb. AMD has a history of failing at marketing, and this is just another example. Lets take our mid range RX480 and try to sell it to the 0.1% of the market buying VR who due to the cost and high performance requirements of VR are not interested in something as low end as an RX480 anyway.
No one will blow $800 on VR glasses without checking their pc is good enough and the first check will be the gpu.
R9 380 level & OCed will likely match the 380xNo. 2800 pts in 3dMark FireStrike Extreme is GTX 970/980 levels.
It is 50W GPU O_O.
Edit, whoops. I thought it was Ultra. My bad. Closer to R9 380X than GTX 980.
Is $200 too little to matter to VR buyers? You're putting the cart before the horse. People aren't going to buy VR because of the 480. It's the other way around. They'll buy the 480 because of VR. Or, they'll buy it because it's the best performance you can get @ $200. Or both.
No one will blow $800 on VR glasses without checking their pc is good enough and the first check will be the gpu. No one buy a new a RX480 to use with VR because they'll buy a much better gpu. No one will seriously buy an RX480 hoping to get VR glasses one day "when they are cheap" because by that time the RX480 will be old hat and way beneath the min VR spec.
Just accept it - trying to sell the RX480 for use with VR is dumb. AMD has a history of failing at marketing, and this is just another example. Lets take our mid range RX480 and try to sell it to the 0.1% of the market buying VR who due to the cost and high performance requirements of VR are not interested in something as low end as an RX480 anyway.
No. 2800 pts in 3dMark FireStrike Extreme is GTX 970/980 levels.
It is 50W GPU O_O.
Edit, whoops. I thought it was Ultra. My bad. Closer to R9 380X than GTX 980.