AMD Testing a 4K, 120 Hz VR HMD

MavericK

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,700
Very interesting:

UPDATE: AMD Working on 4K, 120Hz VR HMD | VRFocus

Apparently it's not AMD's display but the specs are supposedly correct.

My question is, how are we going to push 4K times 2 at 120 FPS? That just seems crazy at this point in time. I imagine technologies like nVidia's SMP will have to be used to optimize the rendering.

Also, they mentioned the "goal" being 16K per eye, 144 FPS... :eek::eek::eek:

I guess we will need a supercomputer for that one...or quantum computers?
 
4 x Titan X. 5000 dollars. cocaine is helluva drug...

Its not about performance limit its about make product to masses and profit from it 10x time spend doing it.

Do IT. Delivery. Be driffent.
 
MavericK said:
Very interesting:

UPDATE: AMD Working on 4K, 120Hz VR HMD | VRFocus

Apparently it's not AMD's display but the specs are supposedly correct.

My question is, how are we going to push 4K times 2 at 120 FPS? That just seems crazy at this point in time. I imagine technologies like nVidia's SMP will have to be used to optimize the rendering.

Also, they mentioned the "goal" being 16K per eye, 144 FPS... :eek::eek::eek:

I guess we will need a supercomputer for that one...or quantum computers?
Click to expand...

I am going to remember this quote and see where we are in 5-7 years.
 
I don't think you need tor render 4k times 2. My understanding is that you can send the exact same image to each screen, with the physical lenses providing the 3d/stereoscopic effect. So that means we just need 4k at 120fps, which we can do right now in a lot of games with a GTX 1080, or even a 1070 or 980, by turning the graphics settings down enough.

If graphics keep improving at the rate they have the last few years I would guess that medium graphics settings 8k @ 120fps is probably only 4-5 years away, and 16k @144fps will be 7-8 years after that. So I think we are looking at probably 12 years before we have desktops that can hit that goal, but it will be pretty darn acceptable in 5 years with 8k per eye.
 
arentol said:
I don't think you need tor render 4k times 2. My understanding is that you can send the exact same image to each screen, with the physical lenses providing the 3d/stereoscopic effect. So that means we just need 4k at 120fps, which we can do right now in a lot of games with a GTX 1080, or even a 1070 or 980, by turning the graphics settings down enough.

If graphics keep improving at the rate they have the last few years I would guess that medium graphics settings 8k @ 120fps is probably only 4-5 years away, and 16k @144fps will be 7-8 years after that. So I think we are looking at probably 12 years before we have desktops that can hit that goal, but it will be pretty darn acceptable in 5 years with 8k per eye.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, You can't make a single image stereoscopic with any form of lens distortion. The only way to have the image appear to have depth is to use two different images.

And also, there are very few *modern* games wherein a GTX 1080 can render 4K at 120FPS MINIMUM.
 
time to go back to starfox (SNES) level of detail... shit doesn't need to be photorealistic to do the trick...
 
Youn said:
time to go back to starfox (SNES) level of detail... shit doesn't need to be photorealistic to do the trick...
Click to expand...

It often works better, since you can skip the uncanny valley with bad animation. Low poly is in right now for a lot of indie developers, but I see it being a matter of course for a few years if we end up trying to reach for better hardware than we have software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top