AMD & NVIDIA GPU VR Performance: H3VR @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,837
AMD & NVIDIA GPU VR Performance: H3VR - Hot Dogs, Horseshoes & Hand Grenades is more of a firearms simulation than it is a game. H3VR certainly does have some gaming and scoring modes of play and the developer is has been very busy increasing the H3VR content depth. If you have never handled a rifle of pistol, H3VR can be somewhat daunting, but certainly rewarding.
 
This looks like the reason I needed to buy an HTC! Excellent review, I love the physics, and no...the RX 480 is not VR anything. I've owned two, didn't like either model. The 470 was a little better, it ran cooler anyway and pretty quiet. But, the drivers! Ohh the drivers. I put around 10 hours (way to much time) into troubleshooting on two different systems. Not worth it when I can drop a 1060 in, get 980 performance and install the drivers hassle free in 30 seconds or less.

Now. Logging in to GF exp is a pain, and I just don't run it on the desktop, but everything else - a breeze.

The developer sounds cool, and I've been waiting for a sim like this for as long as I've been playing games. I have always wanted games to be this involved, to show the scrubs how fast they would perish =P
 
I'll have to add this to my watch list. I have to give [H] props for fighting the driver issues for the 480 and installing old drivers. You at least gave it a fighting chance.
 
Yay! I was wondering when you'd get around to this one. One of my favorite VR games, and the dev is extremely active in the community.
 
So with the current disastrous state of RX 480 performance in VR, why is it still being ranked above the R9 Fury X in the chart at the ends of these evaluations? The 480 is worse in all performance metrics; yes, it is cheaper, but if it's broken, that's completely irrelevant.
 
phobos512 said:
So with the current disastrous state of RX 480 performance in VR, why is it still being ranked above the R9 Fury X in the chart at the ends of these evaluations? The 480 is worse in all performance metrics; yes, it is cheaper, but if it's broken, that's completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the value, as stated by the subtext.
 
Here's a little taste of what's coming in the next update (or two):



 
Shintai said:
Well put!

Click to expand...

lies1.jpg
 
Kyle, are you testing with the Oculus Rift using the new Asynchronous Space Warp registry hack enabled? It's some pretty impressive stuff (based on my testing with PCars)......
 
HeadRusch said:
Kyle, are you testing with the Oculus Rift using the new Asynchronous Space Warp registry hack enabled? It's some pretty impressive stuff (based on my testing with PCars)......
Click to expand...
Not yet, have a new Rift on the way to me now. We will not be doing reviews on ASW till it becomes an officially supported feature. Testing with hacks is just not good overall in the tech space. That said, we may do an article on ASW however. I am looking forward to my new Rift showing up.
 
FrgMstr said:
Not yet, have a new Rift on the way to me now. We will not be doing reviews on ASW till it becomes an officially supported feature. Testing with hacks is just not good overall in the tech space. That said, we may do an article on ASW however. I am looking forward to my new Rift showing up.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, thx.
 
can someone explain to me then, i mean the 480 RX just sucks for VR....So how the fuck can the PS4VR bundle work....

Either way. Man AMD reminds me of the devs of No Mans Sky....Claim all sorts of bullshit about a product that fails to deliver.
 
Well, PSVR is a lower resolution and lower frame rate, for starters.

Also, same reason games can look better on console for the specs than PC - unified hardware set allowing for much better optimization.
 
MavericK said:
Well, PSVR is a lower resolution and lower frame rate, for starters.

Also, same reason games can look better on console for the specs than PC - unified hardware set allowing for much better optimization.
Click to expand...

Hmm Interesting. So you can change resolutions in the VR Headset?
 
Brackle said:
Hmm Interesting. So you can change resolutions in the VR Headset?
Click to expand...
The HMD display resolution is static, but the GPU can render the image at a higher (or lower) resolution before it gets to the screen.
 
Developers are lazy nowdays. You cant blame the GPU manufacturer for every bug or Nonoptimization of a software.
 
MavericK said:
I think it has to do with the value, as stated by the subtext.
Click to expand...

Value = Performance / $.
Zero Performance / $1 = Zero Value.

Article said:
The RX 480 is a continued failure in VR
Click to expand...

So, that doesn't really make sense either. Also, why wouldn't the 1080 be rated above the Titan X if this were true? The 1080 costs a little more than half what the Titan X costs and provides >90% the performance of the Titan X in all but one VR title (IIRC).
 
I feel like I need to make some sort of a stock for this game, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
 
phobos512 said:
Value = Performance / $.
Zero Performance / $1 = Zero Value.



So, that doesn't really make sense either. Also, why wouldn't the 1080 be rated above the Titan X if this were true? The 1080 costs a little more than half what the Titan X costs and provides >90% the performance of the Titan X in all but one VR title (IIRC).
Click to expand...

In VR everyone super samples though. It's hard to read text if you don't. A 1080 the standard is 1.5x. 1.8-1.9x with a Titan X is actually a good jump and noticeable.
 
Yep, 1.5 is about right for me. I tried 1.7 but the performance was a bit too low.

For some reason Raw Data is funky...terrible performance with 1.0 SS in game and 1.5 in Steam, but decently playable with 1.5 to 1.7 in game and 1.0 in Steam. :confused:
 
I got my RX 480 MSI Gaming X 8GB on a steal because I had some gift cards that were about to expire and they had to be spent. $30-ish bucks extra, and it was in my hands. I couldn't get a 1060 6GB because there were none, and 1070's were still +$130 more at that time.

I cannot say that I am disappointed in the slightest considering what I came from LOL. I'm thrilled with it - it does 2K just fine everything jacked up.

Damn, maybe I'm just getting old, but it's pretty much fantastic for me. I'll have to try out some of this newfangled VR hardware at some point, though, and see how disappointed I am.

Somehow, I don't see that happening in the next year or so. There is such a thing as overclocking and it isn't a slouch in that department, especially with memory OC??
 
Aerows said:
I got my RX 480 MSI Gaming X 8GB on a steal because I had some gift cards that were about to expire and they had to be spent. $30-ish bucks extra, and it was in my hands. I couldn't get a 1060 6GB because there were none, and 1070's were still +$130 more at that time.

I cannot say that I am disappointed in the slightest considering what I came from LOL. I'm thrilled with it - it does 2K just fine everything jacked up.

Damn, maybe I'm just getting old, but it's pretty much fantastic for me. I'll have to try out some of this newfangled VR hardware at some point, though, and see how disappointed I am.

Somehow, I don't see that happening in the next year or so. There is such a thing as overclocking and it isn't a slouch in that department, especially with memory OC??
Click to expand...

I own an RX 480 aswell, XFX one, no issues at all, i cant speak for VR because i dont se myself buying this tech in the near future (3-4 years imo). At the state of VR nowdays, i have to wait. But my conclusion is that, AMD does not get much love from devs. When Kyle says that "Steam VR crashed on RX 480 with the latest drivers and had to go back a few versions" (hey, not even the before latest worked for him) then i have to blame the developers because they released a title that does not work on all hardware. Why isnt Kyle contacting the devs and atleast ask them if they tested their product on the RX 480 before the "early acces" to se if there are issues?
 
CrisanT said:
Why isnt Kyle contacting the devs and atleast ask them if they tested their product on the RX 480 before the "early acces" to se if there are issues?
Click to expand...
Because I bought a RX 480 (actually three) and I bought a bunch of VR games, and it says VR Ready PREMIUM right on the box......so I need to interview game devs before I test games I bought....with hardware I bought?

20161012_080926.jpg
 
MavericK said:
Yep, 1.5 is about right for me. I tried 1.7 but the performance was a bit too low.

For some reason Raw Data is funky...terrible performance with 1.0 SS in game and 1.5 in Steam, but decently playable with 1.5 to 1.7 in game and 1.0 in Steam. :confused:
Click to expand...

I believe SS in the config file is 1.5*horizontal res*1.5*vertical = 2.25 the pixels.

Some scaling they actually scale your end pixels, so it could mean 2.25x pixels in the config file and 1.5x in the game. Like DSR is pixels, 4x is 4x the pixels not 4*4 =16.

So some places it's could be a multiplier for your total pixel count, some places it could be a multiplier in front of horizontal and vertical (so a squared increase) lines.

So in your case it could make sense that the config file is 1.5x1.5 = 2.25 the total pixel count in the config file. Then the in game scaling is on the total pixel count so 1.5-1.7x your total pixel count.
 
CrisanT said:
I own an RX 480 aswell, XFX one, no issues at all, i cant speak for VR because i dont se myself buying this tech in the near future (3-4 years imo). At the state of VR nowdays, i have to wait. But my conclusion is that, AMD does not get much love from devs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because an already niche game developing segment is so going to cater to a GPU vendor with terrible VR capable GPU marketshare.
 
CrisanT said:
I own an RX 480 aswell, XFX one, no issues at all, i cant speak for VR because i dont se myself buying this tech in the near future (3-4 years imo). At the state of VR nowdays, i have to wait. But my conclusion is that, AMD does not get much love from devs. When Kyle says that "Steam VR crashed on RX 480 with the latest drivers and had to go back a few versions" (hey, not even the before latest worked for him) then i have to blame the developers because they released a title that does not work on all hardware. Why isnt Kyle contacting the devs and atleast ask them if they tested their product on the RX 480 before the "early acces" to se if there are issues?
Click to expand...

If you don't have any VR issues or interest in VR, why bring up that your hardware works fine sans VR? Why are you asking Kyle to justify his VR experiences when you have no interest in it?

Kyle has repeatedly stated that he's going to test marketing claims and AMD, for whatever reason, claims a Premium VR experience. Based on the VR reviews so far, I'd say that's a claim not backed up by the evidence collected.
 
This drives me crazy as I'm trying to get a new vid card with the idea of using it for 144hz 1080 monitor with adaptive sync which the 480 does quite well and on the cheap due to Freesync not taxed as heavily has Gsync. But I also have my sights set on VR and every single time VR games are tested, the 480 is left wanting... I guess in the grand scheme of things the Gsync tax isn't that great when you consider spending $1200 on all three (monitor, vid card, and vr)
 
Last edited:
Omegas said:
This drives me crazy as I'm trying to get a new vid card with the idea of using it for 144hz 1080 monitor with adaptive sync which the 480 does quite well and on the cheap due to Freesync not taxed as heavily has Gsync. But I also have my sights set on VR and every single time VR games are tested, the 480 is left wanting... I guess in the grand scheme of things the Gsync tax isn't that great when you consider spending $1200 on all three (monitor, vid card, and vr)
Click to expand...

There's already been at least twice where Kyle had to roll back drivers or do something. At least two games weren't playable by default. So there's that too...

I would suggest a 1070 if you can swing it. That or wait for Vega & hope AMD gets their drivers together. I highly suggest the little extra umph to have some sort of super scaling.
 
CrisanT said:
...But my conclusion is that, AMD does not get much love from devs...
Click to expand...

If developers aren't devoting sufficient resources to properly optimize for AMD hardware, then it's on AMD to do something about it for their customers. Valve had to do work on Unity's renderer to make it better optimized for Vive developers rather than Unity itself doing it. Oculus/Carmack had to basically work without any guarantees to get the initial GearVR Minecraft proof of concept rolling before Microsoft/Mojang committed anything to it themselves. Nvidia and Oculus have both built their own derivations of UE4 to better suit their tech demo needs (and presumably speed up Epic's own internal development.) Of course this sort of bootstrapping of external/third-party properties requires a ton of costly, high-risk engineering investment, and all for a small/niche market no less.

It feels like AMD has opted to take the cheaper road of simply saying they're the best and repeating it enough times to steer the narrative and boost sales. Twitter posts and power point slides are cheaper than engineering, promises are easier than execution, etc. Looking at Reddit over the last couple years seems to have shown this to be a big success for AMD as the prevailing opinion in hardware recommendations skewed heavily towards Fury X being better for VR than 980ti, 290/390 over 970, etc.
 
Hate can fog a persons mind and the result is Bias. If a software/game developer sells me a product, then in 99% of cases the minimum/recommended requirements are given after testing the product on that hardware. If Microsoft, i.e, releases a new OS or releases a new "Service pack update" and ruins something that worked, or it claims that it works on the hardware but infact it doesnt, then it is Microsofts fault because the have crap support. I have played Blizzard, i.e, games for decades now, and if theyr game was not running oprimal on a piece of hardware , then they did the best to fix the issue because they wanted me to play their game, it was in theyr best interest to do so.
So the fact that this game, or another, is not running optimal on some hardware it is not only AMD VR premium logo, because the AMD card is very well capable of running it (it was proven).

"Yeah, because an already niche game developing segment is so going to cater to a GPU vendor with terrible VR capable GPU marketshare", WTF, so basically if you would be a developer, you would not give a s$hit about AMD GPU owners and then blame AMD because the lack of your optimisation.
FFS, even Samsung sells "Gear VR" for a freakin smartphone, dont tell me a 5 TFlop card with 8GB Ram cant handle VR if the software is not crap, obviously.
 
CrisanT said:
Hate can fog a persons mind and the result is Bias. If a software/game developer sells me a product, then in 99% of cases the minimum/recommended requirements are given after testing the product on that hardware. If Microsoft, i.e, releases a new OS or releases a new "Service pack update" and ruins something that worked, or it claims that it works on the hardware but infact it doesnt, then it is Microsofts fault because the have crap support. I have played Blizzard, i.e, games for decades now, and if theyr game was not running oprimal on a piece of hardware , then they did the best to fix the issue because they wanted me to play their game, it was in theyr best interest to do so.
So the fact that this game, or another, is not running optimal on some hardware it is not only AMD VR premium logo, because the AMD card is very well capable of running it (it was proven).

"Yeah, because an already niche game developing segment is so going to cater to a GPU vendor with terrible VR capable GPU marketshare", WTF, so basically if you would be a developer, you would not give a s$hit about AMD GPU owners and then blame AMD because the lack of your optimisation.
FFS, even Samsung sells "Gear VR" for a freakin smartphone, dont tell me a 5 TFlop card with 8GB Ram cant handle VR if the software is not crap, obviously.
Click to expand...
So you just proved the point, AMD is getting subpar performance in VR and it's entirely their own fault. It seems to have significant issues in the latest driver so much so that the reviewer downgraded it to an older version to get it working so apparently it's not the developer's problem or even a Unity engine problem but an actual AMD problem (looking at the solution used in the article a driver issue related to the RX480 alone).

From the review said:
And we again we had multiple BSODs while using the RX 480 as well. Falling back a few driver versions solved this. But with the latest "Hotfix" driver I would suggest that Steam VR was unusable with the AMD RX 480 video card. I only actually got Steam VR to run successfully twice out of about 12 tries with driver version 16.10.1. The RX 480 is a continued failure in VR. I had zero issues with R9 Fury X.
Click to expand...

As far as the min specs you do realize that almost all VR games use either UE4 or Unity. So the min specs you see given by the developer are exactly what the min specs for VR are for either UE4 or Unity. I would say it's rare that any of these indie developers have multiple test rigs. IMHO especially with this game which has one developer, he probably only has one rig for development and testing. If so then given the steam hardware survey stats it's an Nvidia rig. And yes using a third party engine like UE4 or Unity basically means you don't have to test it on those varying rigs especially now when the game is still in early access. If you are lucky the dev might buy a rig with a AMD 290 in it to test the min specs on before the final release, and even then that won't stop the issue the reviewer had because it's an AMD driver problem that seems to only affect the 480 (an assumption since the min spec 290 wasn't tested but they had no issue with the Fury X and the driver).
 
Dayaks said:
I believe SS in the config file is 1.5*horizontal res*1.5*vertical = 2.25 the pixels.

Some scaling they actually scale your end pixels, so it could mean 2.25x pixels in the config file and 1.5x in the game. Like DSR is pixels, 4x is 4x the pixels not 4*4 =16.

So some places it's could be a multiplier for your total pixel count, some places it could be a multiplier in front of horizontal and vertical (so a squared increase) lines.

So in your case it could make sense that the config file is 1.5x1.5 = 2.25 the total pixel count in the config file. Then the in game scaling is on the total pixel count so 1.5-1.7x your total pixel count.
Click to expand...

Good point, could be. I would still think that since, well, basically every other game than Raw Data runs fine for me at 1.5, it should be similar performance-wise. It doesn't sound like I'm alone, either (may even be specific to 1070/1080 cards it sounds like), so it's something the dev has to look at.
 
New dev log is up:


And the update to go along with it. He's also teasing about his Halloween update this coming Friday. I have to say this guy's early access participation and work has probably been the best one I have ever been a part of.
 
The slicers are creepy as fuck. Two of them started fighting each other for some reason in my game...they got stuck together and sparks were flying everywhere.
 
Halloween update is out...adds creepy survival horror mode.

Also added a .44 Desert Eagle. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top