With VR coming out, there's a legitimate market demand for a single card solution that will run it... @ 2x 90 minimum FPS being the recommended specs... surely the next generation of GPUs will deliver single card solutions @ the ~$600 price point... otherwise VR isn't an adoptable thing for 2016 and beyond even to avid gaming enthusiasts...
So given that VR is a thing with the release of the Occulus Rift and HTC's Vive in the confines of 2016... is it reasonable to expect a high-end GPU capable of running such devices at recommended specs or is THAT big of leap in GPU performance just a pipe-dream?
As a parallel... is it responsible to recommend high-end GPUs for budget PC builds at this point when you're knowingly skimping on other core components... while figuring that GPUs will likely never see the spike in performance as it will next gen do to obvious demand...
Considering they display at 1080p I don't think you should get an enthusiast level gpu just for a hmd. I might get crucified for this, but the fact they're developing VR equipment for consoles is a good thing. Games will be optimized to use your cpu and gpu effectively with the hmd.
A mid high end gpu should be fine for it imo. I used my dk2 with vorpx on games that aren't optimized for vr and i got around 60 fps with my r9 290. I know 60 fps isn't whats recommended but keep in mind I was using third party software to play a game that isnt optimized for VR. I was also playing in max settings, which I could have adjusted to get my extra 30 fps. I wouldn't fret over being able to run games in vr with mid level hardware since the whole idea of wearing a hmd is pretty new. On a side not, weather you wan't to use 2 gpus or one powerful one is up to you, really. It's a matter of personal preference. On one hand you're gonna constantly run into games where you're gonna be forced to use one gpu along with other issues that might come up. On the other you got a crazy expensive single gpu.
I have an R9 Fury for 21:9. is it worth it now? honestly it's best to wait for R9 400 series or the Nvidia 1000 series. everything will either have HBM or GDDR5X. though honestly I don't think VR will take off as much as people want it to. even from a financial standpoint it doesn't make sense to invest onto an oclulus rift.
I can't really think of a reason to wait and I agree with @Kat that it won't take off as much as people want it to. It's a niche market if anything and would easily replace a monitor.
It I could play a game like the games in Sword Art Online that would be a different story. But honestly get a fury if you want a fury, get a 980 ti if you want one. Hell get a pile of R9 Nano's and that'll do the job. I just never saw the excitement for VR. I tried it once, said "thats neat" and for the remainder of the 2 weeks I had it it just sat in the corner.
Its up to you really though. It'll be a few month's after release for the next-gen GPU's to have the kinks worked out and for everything to level out.
It really does feel like they're trying to force this market to take off. I would like it to, but you're probably right. This is a lot like the time where they were selling the 3d tvs. Nobody wants to wear glasses when casually watching tv. And most people don't want to wear silly goggles for their games. There's only a handful of games that would benefit from this.
I feel like the current method for shopping for a GPU still remains: buy whats available that works for you within the constraints of your budget. It's gonna take a few more years for a solid VR ecosystem to exist, and the supporting hardware (headset) needs to be more affordable for it to become anything more than a brief period of time where it was in the spotlight, then died off entirely due to poor execution, lack of titles, and affordability; think Virtual Boy.
If a card in the here and now works for your foreseeable future, go for it... otherwise you turn into me, where nothing is ever good enough because you KNOW that "soon" there will be something that supplants what is presently out/you currently have/can afford.
I love AMD and all, but they say a lot of things, although HBM 2 and 14nm should help a lot, aren't they basically cutting the die size in half across the board for their products?
but there is a legitimate market demand for this performance increase... the HAVE to have this increase for a market release of HMD's to be viable....
So to the avg gamer that's looking into buying a high-endish card... can you argue that buying a whatever-for-now card and upgrading at next gen's release that's actually capable of 2x90FPS minimum frames @1080p isn't a viable wait vs. throwing $300+ at a R9 390+.... THAT is the question...
If you mean 980ti now vs 390, the money saved going with the 390, about $300, is going to get you more performance in a year or 2 than if you had bought the 980ti now
but otherwise I mean nvidia has the money to care about VR, but AMD on the other hand probably isn't going to exactly make products for what is less than like 1% of the market with VR
Here it is. "In terms of what we’ve done at the high level, it’s our most revolutionary jump in performance so far."
@Streetguru, I am willing to believe them. The jump in node is massive. The rumors are that it is 14nm, but even given the bigger possibility of 16nm, that is still a bigger jump than ever before (to my knowledge). Considering that the biggest jump in performance from Intel comes when they move to a smaller node, there is a good reason to believe that this move is going to be substantial in terms of performance. The last two jumps for Intel have been from 32nm to 22nm and then to 14nm. AMD is looking at 28nm to 16nm (or 14nm, it isn't clear). That is nearly twice the jump. Add that to HBM's advantages. Add that to their willingness to sacrifice efficiency in the name of power (which we all know they are willing to do) and you are left with a very powerful high end gpu. I know not to count my chicken's before they hatch, but if money is an issue, I would recommend waiting for the new gpus.
I completely disagree. The reason is because of what we saw with Intel. Back before the 8350 dropped, AMD shifted from focusing on per core performance to core count. They expected software to start shifting in that direction and to later give them an edge. It was a move to make expand things by embracing the future and hoping that they get more from that then by focusing on what works here and now. Intel focused on what worked with the software that was already out while AMD focused on the software that would come later. They are doing the same thing with HSA and APUs. I expect them to do the same thing with VR. I can't remember what it was, but a year or two ago, nVidia make a big fuss about changing something that would allow VR to work with lower latency, and in return, the VR community was like "cool, but AMD has been doing this from the start and hasn't made a fuss." My point is that they are much more willing to embrace possibilities in the future than other companies seem to be. Add to the fact that VR is the biggest reason (aside from 4k) for high end gpus to actually sell, and you are looking at AMD focusing heavily on VR.
For example... Rift is ready for packaging.... that shit is ready for market RIGHT NOW... they delayed the release to wait for the GPU market to catch up to it's standards (the new AMD release basically)... I'm quite certain a regular 980 can't do low FPS rates of 2x 90fps... MAYBE a 980ti...
I know for a fact my EVGA 780 classifieds in SLI have trouble keeping Fallout4 over 100FPS @ 1440p on ultra... and that setup isn't THAT old and cost me around $900...
Point blank... if VR doesn't have a single card solution that can run it to spec... it can't release... which MUST mean there's a single card solution coming SOON...
I've never been the guy to sit in a corner and wait for the release of a thing... but it doesn't take a tech geek to say the next GPU line will have to be a huge jump to keep up with the demands of the market... not because VR is the next big thing... but because for it to ever BE a thing, it has to have hardware that can push it... and current hardware can not to spec
With a chip like an 8370 or 9590 and two 390's you can have a build do 4K gaming at 80+ FPS. That's more than enough to drive VR. Honestly inside of one core, what all are you going to do? Open a web page? Oh no my 3 milliseconds are wasted!!!
I agree with you though. AMD looked at what was happening in the market over all and just went to high end capability because.... Why not? The processor microcode is always getting a nudge up for these procs and windows 10 can just update it on the side. It's kind of genius when you look at how they planned it. I see a lot of fanboy's on here yelling and screaming about intel chips day in and day out and honestly it's over benchmarks. If a 9590 can do 4K at 80 FPS my build is going to have a 9590 and a fury because I want AMD in the market and the capability is there.
Zen is in scope for me, but theres a reason they haven't touched their flagship models. They kicked ass against the 33XX intel chips and they have only fit better into the software put out by devs as time has gone on. If firefox takes 2.85 seconds longer to open, whatever. If gimp or KDEnLive take 5 more minutes after a few updates to render frames, I don't really care. I still supported who I wanted to and the build I did is doing what it should.
All the people flipping about simple numbers is silly to me.
I think everybody here is on board with AMD GPUs... they run a little hot, they use a little more power, but the horsepower is there...
There is no fanboyism in saying AMD fell WAAAAY behind on CPUs (then switched to APU manufacturing to power the new gen of consoles just to lose money on every one sold)... you're not doing AMD a favor by purchasing their ancient piledriver architecture in 2016... If anything, you're encouraging them to be complacent by blindly following a company that hasn't released a powerful CPU in 4 years (coincidentally ABOUT the same amount of time a prebuilt can be expected to be trash by)... a 9590 can do the same thing an 8350 can do if the 8350 was purchased 4 years ago and was a well-binned chip...
However... this isn't about Intel vs AMD vs Nvidia (Why does it always come to that here?)
Honestly, that "AMD GPUs run's hot" is not really valid anymore.
The card that outputs the most heat on the 300 series lineup is that Hawaii/Grenada cards. the Fury aftermarket cards stay under around 71C + under load. the R9-380 stays around the low 70s and the other cards below it stay in the high 60s.
idk I don't expect VR games to be The Witcher 3 VR edition, I expect them to be potato.
I also expect VR 2nd and 3rd gen to be affordable consumer equipment, and GPU technology then will be a lot better than it is now with 14nm (or less) as well as hbm 2 or 3.