Qcumber

I've just posted this benchmark to compare full image versus QVFR so you can see how much performance boost you can get.

I have two tracks of a 109 flying over the desert for about 1 min. I have compared a range of settings to see what impact this will have on performance and GPU latencies. This is using a Quest Pro with QVFR unless otherwise stated. 72Hz The base resolution coming from quest link is set to x1 (1808x1856 per eye). This is then upscaled using QVFR (or OTT when this is disabled). Equivalent full resolutions across the whole frame. Base 2.2 1.6 1 0.8 0.5 Hor 1808 3978 2893 1808 1446 904 Vert 1856 4083 2970 1856 1485 928 The foveated region is set at x2.2 and is 0.2x0.2 in size The data show the frequency at which the latencies fall into 0.1 ms bins expressed as percentage of a total number of events. The vertical red dotted line shows the 13.89 ms level which equates to 72 FPS. If a latency goes above this then you will see stutters and missed frames. Comparison of no AA, MSAA and DLSS All settings are foveated 2.2 at 0.2x0.2 and the periphery at 0.8 Interestingly MSSA has less impact on the latency than DLSS quality. I think this is because it is only having to work hard on the foveated region (!?). The DLAA latencies were more variable for some reason. This compares the tract with no QVFR and with QVFR with a foveated region of 2.2 with different settings for the peripheral resolution. As expected there is an increase in latency when the peripheral resolution is increased. I have also done some analysis of a more demanding track flying low over Cairo and can post the results if anyone is interested.

Even though it has less pixels than the P4 the image quality is better (subjective) and a wider fov. You can get your eyes much close to the lenses. Eye tracking gives a massive performance boost. I can push the foveated resolution high for a very sharp image which you can't do across the full image even with a high end rig.

Yes. Definitely. I moved from a Pico 4 to a Quest Pro. It's a very good headset. Eye tracking makes a massive difference in performance.

I have followed the methods used in the above video and have compared several tracks in different situations. Edit: This has been updated so that I can share more data. See below.

I would advise starting with something simple and cheap like a used Quest 2 then you can get a feel for VR and all the various complexities. If you don't get on with VR then not much wasted. If you like VR you will then be in a better place to decide what headset would work for you later.

The 9070xt does not look promising for VR at the moment.

Here are my Firestrike results. Single test at each configuration. I plan to do repeat tests and average them. Core Mem Overall GPU Physics Combined Base 0 0 51588 67955 37721 22879 OC 400 2000 53218 72775 36590 22804 % n/a n/a 103% 107% 97% 100%

Interesting video on benchmarking in DCS

Rtx 5070ti VR performance

Will do. I have run Steel Nomad as I figured this was newer and therefore better but will test Firestrike too.

Just had an issue with NVIDIA driver (572.70) and NVPI. I could not change the preset and the latest DLSS version. I rolled back to 572.60 and everything was ok.

Just got my new 5070ti (MSI Ventus 3x OC) so I thought a new thread might be useful. I've upgraded from a 4070 so was expecting a reasonable improvement. It's early days but the jump is much better than I expected. Synthetic benchmarks (Steel Nomad and Furmark) show about a 60% bump over the 4070 which is consistent with reviews at 4k. It's always tricky evaluating performance when fps is maxed out so I tend to look at %GPU use. I use the Syria F-16 free flight as one of my performance checks. With my previous setup (5800x3d and 4070) GPU was maxed out when flying over Tripoli. With the same DCS settings my new setup (9800x3d and 5070ti) the GPU load maxed out at about 65%. (Does anyone have ideas how best to give a comparative DCS benchmark?) I have managed to overclock it to +600 core and +2000 in MSI afterburner. This is stable in Furmark and after a couple of hours of intensive missions in DCS. In Furmark this gives me +17% over base performance. I realise this is synthetic and not necessarily representative but it's still a very nice boost. The other thing I noticed is that DLSS 4 appears to run better. It could be that I am able to push resolution up and can maintain better latencies. It it could be that 50xx GPUs are better optimised!? Edit: I have since discovered that the +600 core boost is not stable and causes core throttling. +400 is stable in DCS with DLSS4 and gives me +8% in Steel Nomad.

To add to the feedback from sleighzy, you also need to consider QVFR if using it. When this is enabled some settings in DCS have less of an impact than if they were applied to a full resolution image. For example, MSAA has less of a hit with QVFR.

Base prices are going up. At Overclockers the "out of stock" price of MSRP Rx 9070xt cards has risen from £569.99 (6/3/25) to £629.99 (7/3/25) to £649.99 (10/3/25). I would not be surprised if the "new" MSRP target is actually £669.99 or higher.

Most reviews I have seen show that the 5070ti is about 15% faster than a 4070ti super. In the UK they are both about the same price and availability of the 4070ti super is worse than the 5070ti. Used on eBay are selling for the same price as new. About £800.

It works but the game and decode latencies are quite high so is not likely to be a smooth experience. There are no details if DCS settings which would help. I imagine that QVFR would help a lot with the latencies. Bitrate was limited to less than 150 Mbps which suggests an unstable connection. It would be interesting to see this via meta link cable and a higher bitrate, and perhaps more stable connection.

You should be running the latest version which is 3.10.2. Yes. I know this is confusing. By all logic it should be 4.xx etc. !?!

The pico 4 is still a good option. Cheaper than the Q3 and much cheaper than a Crystal Light. Also a used Quest Pro is a very good option. To qualify I have significant experience with rift s, pico 4 and Quest Pro.

The max frame time for 72 fps is 1000/72 = 13.9ms. 13 ms is just below what is needed to maintain 72 fps. 14 ms is just above. Even though your GPU usage is only 80% it looks like you might be at the borderline for maintaining 72 fps.

When you say "solid 72fps" what do your frame times look like? With a good stable fps they should be essentially flat lines. If you see lots of variations or sudden spikes then this could be the issue. You say that your GPU is not maxed out but what about VRAM and CPU load? Are you getting an even load across all cores?

My advice is leave all settings at default except DCS. Just adjust this to meet your system needs. If it all runs OK then no worries. If not then you just might need to adjust something elsewhere. There is a lot of advice out there that is either erroneous or no longer relevant. Just keep it simple.

This is getting very off topic.

Ouch!!!

Yes. I have used some aggressive settings too. With DLSS 4 the lower resolution areas are much less noticeable. Pushing the centre resolution high also helps reduce DLSS artifacts.