Official Thread VR Headset

[TeKPhaN]

I ran the specs test and my laptop failed saying my Intel i7-HQ4720 CPU @ 2.60GHz doesn't meet the minimum spec of an Intel i5-4590. Can a techie explain as it would seem I have a better CPU?

Also I have a GTX960m and it says I need a GTX970...am I screwed? Seems close, is there a big difference between the 2?

A 960m isn't close to a 970.

Also Did you see what nVidia said? http://unionvgf.com/index.php?posts/497162/
(oh and pascal will smoke maxwell)

"NVIDIA is excited about VR moving into 2016, but in order to actually run games comfortably without getting sick and at acceptable framerates, they say that we'll need PC's to be 7 times more powerful than they are now. Pascal might not be up to the task all on its own.

VR is going to put demands on our systems like we've never before, especially if we want a VR headset to have a resolution high enough that we can't see individual pixels. In some instances this is higher than 2K in each eye, or higher than 4K across the entire screen. And with Unreal Engine 4, Unity 5.x and the future of CryEngine, that'll be no easy feat.





NVIDIA spoke with VentureBeat about the challenges of VR and what they're doing to help provide the best experience possible. The bigest and most obvious answer is that they're building ultra-fast GPU's to help handle the workload. But it'd be a stretch to say that even Pascal, with HBM2 will be 7x faster than big Maxwell is. The next piece is GameWorks VR, tools similar to AMD's VR initiative that'll decrease latency and optimize for VR.



So while we won't see an actual increase of that magnitude, there'll be ways to help soften the blow that'll come with this VR revolution. It can apparently deliver 50% more performance in UE4. Oculus does quote that a GTX 970 will be the minimum required for VR, but that's definitely for low-end graphics in this case. SLI, or dual-GPU's will almost be necessary if you want even a fraction of the eye-candy turned on"

 

[Lucid Rifter]

I ran the specs test and my laptop failed saying my Intel i7-HQ4720 CPU @ 2.60GHz doesn't meet the minimum spec of an Intel i5-4590. Can a techie explain as it would seem I have a better CPU?

Also I have a GTX960m and it says I need a GTX970...am I screwed? Seems close, is there a big difference between the 2?

Laptop cpus are downclocked to lower heat output. The desktop version 4590 doesn't have those restrictions and while doesn't have as many threads, has a clock of 3.7 ghz. I'd say the biggest restriction is your 960m tho. Mobile gpu versions are also downclocked and gimped compare to the their desktop counterpart. Nvidia numbering goes up to, so a 970m would be more powerful than your 960m, let alone the desktop version. You're gonna need to upgrade.

 

[Troublegum]

I ran the specs test and my laptop failed saying my Intel i7-HQ4720 CPU @ 2.60GHz doesn't meet the minimum spec of an Intel i5-4590. Can a techie explain as it would seem I have a better CPU?

Also I have a GTX960m and it says I need a GTX970...am I screwed? Seems close, is there a big difference between the 2?

CPU I would say you are probably fine.

GPU... you are screwed.

A GTX 960m is weaker than the desktop GTX 950, in fact, it's around a GTX 750 Ti in spec, benchmarks and performance.

It has only 16 ROPs and a small pixel fill rate, it doesn't stand a chance with Oculus. I recommend you smash your laptop up with a claw hammer.

 

[Oblong]

Thanks for all the info guys...either I am going to cancel my order or put it up on ebay if they are selling from more than MSRP. I do have a desktop that only failed on it's video card so I could just pay about $350 and upgrade that to a GTX970 card.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

A 960m isn't close to a 970.

Also Did you see what nVidia said? http://unionvgf.com/index.php?posts/497162/
(oh and pascal will smoke maxwell)

"NVIDIA is excited about VR moving into 2016, but in order to actually run games comfortably without getting sick and at acceptable framerates, they say that we'll need PC's to be 7 times more powerful than they are now. Pascal might not be up to the task all on its own.

VR is going to put demands on our systems like we've never before, especially if we want a VR headset to have a resolution high enough that we can't see individual pixels. In some instances this is higher than 2K in each eye, or higher than 4K across the entire screen. And with Unreal Engine 4, Unity 5.x and the future of CryEngine, that'll be no easy feat.





NVIDIA spoke with VentureBeat about the challenges of VR and what they're doing to help provide the best experience possible. The bigest and most obvious answer is that they're building ultra-fast GPU's to help handle the workload. But it'd be a stretch to say that even Pascal, with HBM2 will be 7x faster than big Maxwell is. The next piece is GameWorks VR, tools similar to AMD's VR initiative that'll decrease latency and optimize for VR.



So while we won't see an actual increase of that magnitude, there'll be ways to help soften the blow that'll come with this VR revolution. It can apparently deliver 50% more performance in UE4. Oculus does quote that a GTX 970 will be the minimum required for VR, but that's definitely for low-end graphics in this case. SLI, or dual-GPU's will almost be necessary if you want even a fraction of the eye-candy turned on"

I think Nvidia are talking about VR moving forwards. Ideally we'd have two 4k 120hz screens which will probably be available in thr next 2-5 years and that's going to take some serious power. Obviously they're not talking about the current hmd's as the 970 is minimum that's guaranteed to run all Oculus store games at a solid 90fps.

 

[Lucid Rifter]

Thanks for all the info guys...either I am going to cancel my order or put it up on ebay if they are selling from more than MSRP. I do have a desktop that only failed on it's video card so I could just pay about $350 and upgrade that to a GTX970 card.

I have a 780ti about to be refurbished but have 980ti now. I'd give it to you for $200.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

Hardware illustration of tech in the Rift vs DK2.

 

[TeKPhaN]

I think Nvidia are talking about VR moving forwards. Ideally we'd have two 4k 120hz screens which will probably be available in thr next 2-5 years and that's going to take some serious power. Obviously they're not talking about the current hmd's as the 970 is minimum that's guaranteed to run all Oculus store games at a solid 90fps.

Nah man "Oculus does quote that a GTX 970 will be the minimum required for VR, but that's definitely for low-end graphics in this case. SLI, or dual-GPU's will almost be necessary if you want even a fraction of the eye-candy turned on"

Its pretty clear to me

 

[TeKPhaN]

Thanks for all the info guys...either I am going to cancel my order or put it up on ebay if they are selling from more than MSRP. I do have a desktop that only failed on it's video card so I could just pay about $350 and upgrade that to a GTX970 card.

WAIT for PASCAL cards.
DO NOT buy a 970/980.

EDIT: Oblong trust me its the best option and what I am likely to do.
Pascal supposedly is 10 x 10 Titan X cards!

 

[Lucid Rifter]

Hardware illustration of tech in the Rift vs DK2.

Love this pic. DK2 diagram even has the cam in it and the CV1 doesn't.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

Nah man "Oculus does quote that a GTX 970 will be the minimum required for VR, but that's definitely for low-end graphics in this case. SLI, or dual-GPU's will almost be necessary if you want even a fraction of the eye-candy turned on"

Its pretty clear to me

I agree the 970 won't play at the highest settings, at least I hope not. The 970 will be a mid end card and relatively cheap card when Nvidia push pascal out, I'm also hoping to be able to crank up the settings.
Hopefully VR developers start catering for dual gpu's, it has to be implemented so each GPU powers each screen. It would certainly open VR up to many more PC gamers who have lower end dual GPU's.

I'm in a bit of a pickle myself when it comes to a GPU, I want to go with a high end Pascal card but my Rift ships in April and I only have a 770. I've got a feeling we might not see the higher end Pascal/1080 until around the end of the year so I'll probably go with a 980 ti if that's the case.

 

[Intellivision]

$600? LOL.

How does Oculus make money aside from hardware? Do they have licensing/royalty agreements and such like console makers do on software?

If not, and Oculus makes their profits strictly on hardware, then it is expected it would cost this much:

1. They didn't want to scare off gamers until pre-order time (launch is just a few months later)
2. Like PC hardware makers, they make profits off the hardware. Console makers are different. They often lose or breakeven on consoles and make back the money of first party games, DLC, online fees, third party royalty fees, all kinds of extra controllers, battery packs, cables etc.... A console VR would be similar to peripherals which they want to make money, but they always have the choice to eat the cost or not because they have other profitable revenue streams
3. Any retailer selling PC hardware wants to make profit too (too lazy to see if these pre-order deals are direct from OR or also includes stores). Consoles are breakeven business.

I see PS4 VR being maybe $300. $400 tops. Even if the specs are comparable. I see Sony eating must of the cost so they make little money off it, and the retailers make little money. I doubt it will be priced as breakeven, but the profit margins should be smaller as console gaming has other rev streams.

When stores carry Rift, they better make money off it, since most PC games aren't even sold in stores anymore.... unlike console gaming which is still retailer disc heavy. Why would Best Buy or EB promote selling Rift at low profits if most games are bought as Steam downloads?

 

[BDaddyK]

$600? LOL.

How does Oculus make money aside from hardware? Do they have licensing/royalty agreements and such like console makers do on software?

If not, and Oculus makes their profits strictly on hardware, then it is expected it would cost this much:

1. They didn't want to scare off gamers until pre-order time (launch is just a few months later)
2. Like PC hardware makers, they make profits off the hardware. Console makers are different. They often lose or breakeven on consoles and make back the money of first party games, DLC, online fees, third party royalty fees, all kinds of extra controllers, battery packs, cables etc.... A console VR would be similar to peripherals which they want to make money, but they always have the choice to eat the cost or not because they have other profitable revenue streams
3. Any retailer selling PC hardware wants to make profit too (too lazy to see if these pre-order deals are direct from OR or also includes stores). Consoles are breakeven business.

I see PS4 VR being maybe $300. $400 tops. Even if the specs are comparable. I see Sony eating must of the cost so they make little money off it, and the retailers make little money. I doubt it will be priced as breakeven, but the profit margins should be smaller as console gaming has other rev streams.

When stores carry Rift, they better make money off it, since most PC games aren't even sold in stores anymore.... unlike console gaming which is still retailer disc heavy. Why would Best Buy or EB promote selling Rift at low profits if most games are bought as Steam downloads?

Oculus has said they are making zero from the Rift.

 

[Intellivision]

Oculus has said they are making zero from the Rift.

So how do they make money?

 

[Spiritech]

So how do they make money?

Facebook sponsored posts in your face

 

[Plainview]

OMFG did this make me seriously laugh out loud at work. I'll be laughing the rest of the day it it. It's perfect.

If I could like a post of mine it would be this. It still makes me LMFAO!

 

[Lucid Rifter]

So how do they make money?

They have their own software distribution service where you buy vr games. Like steam but exclusively vr.

 

[Intellivision]

They have their own software distribution service where you buy vr games. Like steam but exclusively vr.

Ah.... interesting.

So their $600 claim might be legitimately breakeven after all.

I see various forums on the internet complaining about the price vs the US $600. From personal experience working at companies, I'll tell you why prices are often higher outside the US even when you factor in a reasonable currency exchange, transportation costs and any weird import taxes....

...... Margin.

For most consumer goods, the US is the big fish and will almost always be the largest play in top line sales and profit dollars.

But the US is also usually the most competitive market. So despite top and bottom line dollars being the best, the profit % may not be that great.

Assuming head office is in the US, other country head offices still need to "buy their product from the US". Sounds weird as it's all the same global company, but it's the way the other countries can get a Cost of Goods on their product, since every region has their own P/L sheets to do.

The head office will sell it to them at a price PLUS a %. In my experience, about 5%. So let's say France has to buy their product at xxx + 5% from the US + factor in currency exchange, overseas transportation etc..... These 5% up charges can be termed as "internal upcharge" or "transfer pricing".

Also, other countries are usually not as competitive, so retailer costs and the resulting price at stores is a but jacked up on top of the above costs.

So at the end of the day, the price outside the US can be more than just currency and shipping and government taxes.

Non-US regions that have been around a while (mature markets) are often tasked with being "margin play". So despite sales being low, if they can sell stuff at higher profit, it can bump up the bottom line % a % or two. I'll give you a fake example:

US sales: $100
Profit: $10
Profit %: 10%

Canada sales: $10 (ballpark 10% of the US)
Profit: $2
Profit %: 20%

Total sales: $110
Total Profit: $12
Total Profit %: 10.9%

Hope this helps you guys understand cross-country business and pricing.

 

[TDbank24]

So $600 for Oculus and you need a high end PC to even use it right? I don't see who this thing is really going to sell to. I know it has the better VR tech and whatever but come on. I feel like they should have waited another 3-4 years before pushing VR. The market just isn't there yet. I guess we'll find out. I expect Oculus and PS VR to do well for about 6 months and then fall off after that.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

So $600 for Oculus and you need a high end PC to even use it right? I don't see who this thing is really going to sell to. I know it has the better VR tech and whatever but come on. I feel like they should have waited another 3-4 years before pushing VR. The market just isn't there yet. I guess we'll find out. I expect Oculus and PS VR to do well for about 6 months and then fall off after that.

You have to look past todays market. A gtx 970/I5 might seem expensive today but in 2 or 3 years you'll be able to pick a pc up with those specs for 2-300 dollars. It would be the equivalent of having the recommended specs today something like a gtx570.
5 years down the line you'll be able to run it on a cheap laptop. Potentially hundreds of millions of customers. By that time a similar specced Rift will probably cost $100.
Facebook is a multi billion $ company, they're in this for the long haul. They see VR as the next big thing like smartphones was 8-10 years ago.
I agree that todays customers will be enthusiasts.

I have to say I'm surprised at the push back to VR by a lot of gamers, especially people who love gaming such as ourselves who frequent forums such as this. VR is the holy grail of gaming, total immersion. Why anyone would root for it to fail is beyond me.

I admit I was taken a back by the price myself initially, but I'm now glad Oculus never cut corners just to appeal to the masses straight out of the gate. VR isn't like gaming where 30fps is good enough, in VR it will make you vomit, there are many factors at play and still to be worked out but Oculus have to put there best foot forward when pushing this new market.

One of the reasons I have chose to go for PC based VR is it's the only place currently where I will be able to play modern games like Elite Dangerous, GTA5, Dirt Rally and such in VR, Battlefield 5, Battlefront. You won't be playing anything like that anytime soon on a console. Yes, it will be expensive but it will also be awesome. Don't take that as a knock to Playstation VR though, it's a great hmd and there will be some fantastic experiences on that, I will be picking one up myself.

 

[Frozpot]

So $600 for Oculus and you need a high end PC to even use it right? I don't see who this thing is really going to sell to. I know it has the better VR tech and whatever but come on. I feel like they should have waited another 3-4 years before pushing VR. The market just isn't there yet. I guess we'll find out. I expect Oculus and PS VR to do well for about 6 months and then fall off after that.

The reason it will be better/cheaper in 3-4 years is BECAUSE it can release now to the early adopters. I'm not sure why this is an issue for people other than envy. Regardless, you wouldn't have it for another 3-4 years anyway. That just means it can mature in an actual market. In 3-4 years it will benefit far more having released than it ever would have if it stayed in the "Lab" until powerful PCs become more common.

The tech exists, it's finalized, release the s***. Sure only the niche will have it in the beginning, but it was that way with smart phones and HDTVs. Now we are at the point were everyone has 'em, and even 4k tvs are affordable in a pretty shockingly short time period.

As for the price- we have to remember that it was a Kickstarter project. Funded by the "populace". Much of the cost of R&D has been covered already, so they don't have to bake that into initial cost.

 

[BDaddyK]

Every cool tech that gets released starts as a "niche" product...

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

A good interview from the one of the TESTED guys with Palmer that explains why Oculus went with a $600 Rift.

 

[Kvally]

A good interview from the one of the TESTED guys with Palmer that explains why Oculus went with a $600 Rift.

I watched that as well. Seems like if you want to experience VR, this is the go to option.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

The reason it will be better/cheaper in 3-4 years is BECAUSE it can release now to the early adopters. I'm not sure why this is an issue for people other than envy. Regardless, you wouldn't have it for another 3-4 years anyway. That just means it can mature in an actual market. In 3-4 years it will benefit far more having released than it ever would have if it stayed in the "Lab" until powerful PCs become more common.

The tech exists, it's finalized, release the s***. Sure only the niche will have it in the beginning, but it was that way with smart phones and HDTVs. Now we are at the point were everyone has 'em, and even 4k tvs are affordable in a pretty shockingly short time period.

As for the price- we have to remember that it was a Kickstarter project. Funded by the "populace". Much of the cost of R&D has been covered already, so they don't have to bake that into initial cost.

Great post, I meant to say pretty much the same thing until I started rambling on lol.

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

I watched that as well. Seems like if you want to experience VR, this is the go to option.

Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the big three (HTC, Oculus, SONY) Like I said previously though, I can't wait to drive round Los Santos in VR and unfortunately, you're only going to be able to play those kind of games on PC based VR.

 

[Registered User 1]

A good interview from the one of the TESTED guys with Palmer that explains why Oculus went with a $600 Rift.

Did anyone else get the feeling they'd just bumped a few lines?

They seem a tad flustered by the end.

Pretty cool tech though. I wonder how it would feel feel after prolonged use.

And will it damage my hair extensions?

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

Did anyone else get the feeling they'd just bumped a few lines?

They seem a tad flustered by the end.

Pretty cool tech though. I wonder how it would feel feel after prolonged use.

And will it damage my hair extensions?

The Rift is supposed to be incredibly light, it's been likened to wearing a baseball cap. It's probably one of the reasons it has a premium cost. It's quite a feat to pack all this state of the art tech into such a lightweight headset.
As for your hair extensions, I'm not sure. I do know that you put it on like you would a cap and because it's so light, I should imagine they'd be fine.
Let's hope they don't end up like this.

 

[Frozpot]

The Rift is supposed to be incredibly light, it's been likened to wearing a baseball cap. It's probably one of the reasons it has a premium cost. It's quite a feat to pack all this state of the art tech into such a lightweight headset.
As for your hair extensions, I'm not sure. I do know that you put it on like you would a cap and because it's so light, I should imagine they'd be fine.
Let's hope they don't end up like this.

Dammit! I told my wife to take that picture down!... I DO look fabulous though, don't I?....

 

[Two Pennys Worth]

Pre orders now sold through to July. Great to see there's a lot of demand.

https://shop.oculus.com/en-us/cart/