Any Oculus Rift S users with GTX1080?

[Ratfink]

Hi all, just wondering if anyone can share their experience of VR with a set up like mine, with i7-9700K and GTX1080 (see sig for full specs).

 

 

Particularly interested to hear from Oculus Rift S users.

 

 

Thanks in advance

[javelina1]

Hi all, just wondering if anyone can share their experience of VR with a set up like mine, with i7-9700K and GTX1080 (see sig for full specs).

 

Particularly interested to hear from Oculus Rift S users.

 

Thanks in advance

Hi buddy, see my sig for my specs. I've been flying with the Rift S since it first came out with my rig. I see you have your 9700K at stock speed? I've clocked mine up to 4.9ghz for all cores.

 

 

Working great for me, but I fly mostly SP.

[streakeagle]

I have a Rift S, a GTX 1080, and an old i5 4690K with 32 GB of DDR3 2400 RAM.

 

I can generally maintain 40 fps with half-decent quality.

 

My suggestion is to find either a typical or worst-case mission that gives you the worst performance in VR, then start with ED's default settings. Pick a setting that is important to you, then use trial and error to find the best balance between quality and performance to suit your needs.

 

I can't stand blurry cockpits, so I tend to max out on settings that affect cockpit and gauge clarity.

 

Terrain textures are pretty ugly on low, but high does cost performance.

 

The terrain detail sliders like ground clutter, etc. can save you some fps, but finding a good compromise between performance and looks is very hard. ED's VR defaults are ok, but the more you slide them to the left, the better performance and the uglier/less immersive it gets.

 

I love shadows, but they cost too many fps for intense missions, so I turn them completely off for both the general setting and the terrain setting unless I am flying in an environment where the fps won't drop or I want it to look pretty no matter what the fps.

 

I love mirrors, but recently turned them off for performance. Someone in multiplayer informed me about using the M key to turn them on and off in-game... a great solution for me!

 

I don't use the VR PD setting: I stick to 1.0. The PD does make things look nicer, but it doesn't help with shimmering. I have better luck with using in-game MSAA. I always use MSAAx2 at a minimum and sometimes go to MSAAx4.

 

I also prefer Aniso Filtering x16 since I don't really see a performance penalty from x8 to x16.

 

In the nVidia control panel, I run:

FXAA On

AA Mode to Enhance

AA Setting to Application controlled (since this setting doesn't appear to work in DCS if you try to force it to x2 or higher)

play with the AA Transparency yourself to see if it works or hurts performance, but I recently set it to Off to maximize performance

MFAA to On

Power to Prefer Maximum Performance

Texture fitlering to High performance

I enabled Trilinear optimization, but have no idea if it helps performance or causes costs any noticeable quality

There is some debate about the Virtual Reality pre-rendered frames. I normally defaulted to 1, but have tried others' suggested value of 4. I don't know that I saw any difference between the two.

[Svsmokey]

Heck , i'm running a similar system with a 1070 and it does better than you might expect .

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

it works fine

[javelina1]

Honestly Ratfink, if you're running your 9700K at "stock" speed, you're losing a huge opportunity with that bad boy. That CPU is made for overclocking! You can easily knock that thing up to 4.8 or 4.9 with that cooler. Some have pushed it to 5.0 or even the lucky to 5.1. You'll gain so much!

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

Honestly Ratfink, if you're running your 9700K at "stock" speed, you're losing a huge opportunity with that bad boy. That CPU is made for overclocking! You can easily knock that thing up to 4.8 or 4.9 with that cooler. Some have pushed it to 5.0 or even the lucky to 5.1. You'll gain so much!

+1

[Thinder]

Before overclocking you might want to run a simulation to know what the gain will be at different CPU clock speed.

 

 

I'm sure of one thing, your GPU will struggle more at 120% CPU setting than at 100%.

 

 

I haven't got my 1080ti yet, since I decided to take advantage of lower price options for this card, and I will have to run it with a Rysen 3200 overclocked at 110%, but when I upgrade the CPU, I'll chose the one which bounds the best with the 1080 without overclocking first.

 

 

At the end of the day, it's the quality of the bound between CPU and GPU which will give you the best results, not raw overclocking figures.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2020 by Thinder

[javelina1]

here's my info. I do have my 9700k overclocked, plus the 1080 is bumped up a bit too... Also have taken into account 64GB's of RAM, (rather the configuration tool asked for that info).

 

 

 

[Mr_sukebe]

I've only recently moved from a 1080 to a 2070S. With the 1080, maintaining 40fps wasn't really a problem once I've tweaked some of the settings. There's plenty of guides around to point out the most critical settings, check those first.

[Ala12Rv-Tundra]

I've only recently moved from a 1080 to a 2070S. With the 1080, maintaining 40fps wasn't really a problem once I've tweaked some of the settings. There's plenty of guides around to point out the most critical settings, check those first.

what are your thoughts on moving?

is 2070 worthy?

[Mr_sukebe]

The 2070S is maybe 30% faster.

It was bought as much so that my son could have my 1080.

[Thinder]

here's my info. I do have my 9700k overclocked, plus the 1080 is bumped up a bit too... Also have taken into account 64GB's of RAM, (rather the configuration tool asked for that info).

 

 

 

 

 

Very good.

 

Since yesterday, I've done some more home work, I tested two configurations, with the Intel Core i7 9700K for comparison since I run an AMD motherboard and a Ryzen 7 2700X, both rated at 100%.

 

 

At 2160p/4K, the i7 gives me a slightly lower bottleneck percentage, at 1.79% vs 3.65%, higher than the Ryzen 5 2600X at 2.51%, but the Ryzen 7 runs some games slightly faster than both, or equally as fast than the i7...

 

Considering that the Ryzen 7 2700X cost <> 50% less than the i7-9700 at £174.99 and also have good head room for overclocking, I think I made the right choice going for AMD.

 

Now, my next move will be to get a 1080ti from CEX, they sell them for £510.00 and they are guaranteed 24 month, more to it, they can buy my actual 5500 XT for a £119.00 voucher, which I can use to purchase the ti from them.

 

£391 is a hell of a good deal for a ti 1080 11GB, CEX gear are often brand new, but in any case they are well tested and 2 years guaranty on top is very good.

 

So it was a good thing that blkspade gave me some insight on the performances of the card I intended to purchase first and the ti, This solution is just as cheap and will perform way better in VR.

 

 

 

 

The 2070S is maybe 30% faster.

It was bought as much so that my son could have my 1080.

 

 

In a couple of years perhaps, when they'll be selling second hand, in the meantime let's hope that developers will have improved support for VR...

Edited August 5, 2020 by Thinder