Pimax Crystal Owners - ARE YOU HAPPY?

[kksnowbear]

8 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

But it's so boring changing the PSU!

That's why it took me 2 years to change motherboard to get better cpu, all those little cables that have to be plugged in or out.

Yup lol couldn't agree more - what a PITA.  Especially if you've gone to great lengths to clean it all up and tie everything down.  I just went through that not too long ago, having changed cables from the hideous 4090 'tail' to a custom 600W 12VHPWR cable.

To be clear, though, there are models of the 4090 for which an 850W PSU is adequate - they will likely be power limited in VBIOS, and this is a 'hard' limitation in that it is usually based on the GPU's voltage regulators (VRMs), which of course cannot be readily changed.  Some people have realized the limits in VBIOS can be 'cheated' by loading different VBIOS with higher limits, but it should be obvious why that can be dangerous.

So if you picked your 4090 carefully...no need to change PSUs for adequate capacity (though both efficiency and overhead are different matters which should be considered).

Best of luck!

[dburne]

51 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

But it's so boring changing the PSU!

That's why it took me 2 years to change motherboard to get better cpu, all those little cables that have to be plugged in or out.

 

More importantly it is a bit of a PITB LOL. Main reason I have not done a new PC build yet.

[hsth]

Tally Mouse is happy  https://youtu.be/xhtxSrYhMKM

Also nice view of DFR "in action".

[matze140]

Am 6.10.2023 um 14:37 schrieb Peedee:

It was pretty easy to set up. Install Pimax Play, PimaxXR, and Quadview for use with DCS. I also use OpenXR Toolkit to set the exact resolution for the headset. Anyway - just Plug and play - worked the first time I tried. No problems so far. It exceeds my expectations in that way I had read so many bad things about it. People having problems. And of course some people have problems, they might have gotten a faulty headset. But I also think some people just don´t read instructions carefully enough or have too high expectations what their PC can do with such a high resolution headset. 

To be exactly, as soon as you „set the exact resolution“, you are underscaling the Headset. 5100X4300 is the native resolution of the Crystal.
I know there is a lot of confusion about that, cause people on steam VR stated the 100% as a wrong resolution, but this is the correct number. Be in mind it has to over render because of Distortion Profile. 
 

As soon as you are touching the resolution override function you are wasting picture quality. 

Edited October 8, 2023 by matze140

[Willie Nelson]

2 hours ago, matze140 said:

To be exactly, as soon as you „set the exact resolution“, you are underscaling the Headset. 5100X4300 is the native resolution of the Crystal.
I know there is a lot of confusion about that, cause people on steam VR stated the 100% as a wrong resolution, but this is the correct number. Be in mind it has to over render because of Distortion Profile. 
 

As soon as you are touching the resolution override function you are wasting picture quality. 

 

I'm not sure "wasting" is quite the name for it. I appreicate what you're saying but there is a realitvely small loss of clarity for a dispoportionally large gain in performance. Reducing that native render resolution is well worth thinking about.

[matze140]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb Willie Nelson:

I'm not sure "wasting" is quite the name for it. I appreicate what you're saying but there is a realitvely small loss of clarity for a dispoportionally large gain in performance. Reducing that native render resolution is well worth thinking about.

At what resolution are you playing then? 

[Willie Nelson]

3 hours ago, matze140 said:

At what resolution are you playing then? 

I am on a Reverb G2 Omnicept which has eye tracking and a few other bells and whistles. So these days with QVFR in action I’m on full resolution but in the past when I struggled with performance, I found dialling down the resolution 10-15% would help me get over the 45fps frame rate requirement of 22.2 and I could barely notice the resolution change. Same in the other big sim. Works for me and many others. 

[Peedee]

13 hours ago, matze140 said:

To be exactly, as soon as you „set the exact resolution“, you are underscaling the Headset. 5100X4300 is the native resolution of the Crystal.
I know there is a lot of confusion about that, cause people on steam VR stated the 100% as a wrong resolution, but this is the correct number. Be in mind it has to over render because of Distortion Profile. 
 

As soon as you are touching the resolution override function you are wasting picture quality. 

 

Yes. Of course I know this. I got this headset weeks ago.

But it is naive to think that one can run all games 4300x5100 resolution and still get 90 fps stable. And because Pimax motion reprojection doesn’t work very well, I have to lower the resolution. How much? Depends on the game. In DCS I still get crystal clear image quality at 3800x4497, and I get 90 fps in single player (with Quad view rendering). Not tested multiplayer yet with the Crystal. At 3800x4497 it is still way beyond any other headset I have tested in terms of clarity. 

[matze140]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Peedee:

Yes. Of course I know this. I got this headset weeks ago.

But it is naive to think that one can run all games 4300x5100 resolution and still get 90 fps stable. And because Pimax motion reprojection doesn’t work very well, I have to lower the resolution. How much? Depends on the game. In DCS I still get crystal clear image quality at 3800x4497, and I get 90 fps in single player (with Quad view rendering). Not tested multiplayer yet with the Crystal. At 3800x4497 it is still way beyond any other headset I have tested in terms of clarity. 

That’s absolutely true. Before DFR availible I also run with pimax play at 0.75 what is something in your region. The picture was much better than the Reverb G2 although it has nearly the same render resolution. 

[Peedee]

2 minutes ago, matze140 said:

That’s absolutely true. Before DFR availible I also run with pimax play at 0.75 what is something in your region. The picture was much better than the Reverb G2 although it has nearly the same render resolution. 

Yes  And colors, contrast and black levels is better than Reverb G2. That is also important for overall picture quality. 
 

Just a little nitpicking…. If my math is correct, in DCS where I run it at 3800x4497, that is about 0.88. So quite a bit above the 0.75 that Pimax Play setting allows. So I think the jump between each resolution setting in Pimax Play is too big . They should add more resolution choices in Pimax Play app. So that is why I use Open XR toolkit to set my exact resolution. 0.75 still looks good, but with Quadview I can manage with 3800x4497 (0.88) and it looks noticeably better than 0.75.   But for more demanding missions and scenarios I might have to lower it. 

[j9murphy]

27 minutes ago, Peedee said:

Yes  And colors, contrast and black levels is better than Reverb G2. That is also important for overall picture quality. 
 

Just a little nitpicking…. If my math is correct, in DCS where I run it at 3800x4497, that is about 0.88. So quite a bit above the 0.75 that Pimax Play setting allows. So I think the jump between each resolution setting in Pimax Play is too big . They should add more resolution choices in Pimax Play app. So that is why I use Open XR toolkit to set my exact resolution. 0.75 still looks good, but with Quadview I can manage with 3800x4497 (0.88) and it looks noticeably better than 0.75.   But for more demanding missions and scenarios I might have to lower it. 

For reference can you let us know what cpu/gpu combination you are using?

[Peedee]

2 hours ago, j9murphy said:

For reference can you let us know what cpu/gpu combination you are using?

 I9 13900K, Asus ROG Strix GeForce RTX 4090 OC, 32 GB RAM@6000Mhz.

[CMDR Shepard]

В 07.10.2023 в 05:36, kksnowbear сказал:

You don't specify where 340w is being measured, or by what means...and "full load in VR" sounds like you mean in-game (i.e., while running DCS) which is not the same thing as "full load" for an entire system, nor necessarily even full load for only the GPU.

Regardless, it's not appropriate to use a figure like average power, or  one game, to properly size a PSU. 

Among other things, regardless of efficiency, the TDP of a 4090 is fully 100w higher than a 3090, and that's per Nvidia specs.

I've measured 658W total system load, albeit with a comparatively unsophisticated measuring device. Again, these devices cannot accurately sample the type of excursions that are documented to occur with a 4090. But if my "basic" device shows 658W, it is entirely likely the max transients are higher. 

And if we're talking about efficiency, you need a PSU with roughly twice the capacity of the typical max load to run at its highest efficiency.  In my case, that works out to over 1200w. 

EDIT: Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread and this PSU discussion is somewhat off the thread topic.  That said, the question of power supply was raised by someone else, and it does seem prudent to correct inaccurate information.

 

I clearly specify that such peak consumption was in DCS with 99% utilize GPU by monitoring (which is not actually true, but that's another story). And it with +120Mhz core and +1600 VRAM OC. Full system load depends a lot on what CPU do you have, mine consume only 50-60W, but 13900K will consume much higher. Typical full load of my system is 450-550W. 650 if you run stress tests. I have a UPS that can measure it with high accuracy. The CPU cannot consume more than 86W in my tests, the GPU has 450W limit. 1200W PSU is overkill if you have desktop platform (not HEDT). I also ran my old 3090(420W PL) with 750W Seasonic and it was fine. In real life, not by nvidia specs, it much easier to get 500-600W usage from an overcloked 3090, than from a 4090. Because it has better lithography and 2 times less memory chips.

To show how bad such metric like gpu usage, I show you one fun screenshot - it shows 99% but consume only 170W. In reality, it's more CPU-api bottleneck here. The second one shows typical gpu usage during VR gameplay.

[kksnowbear]

When I asked where and by what means the load was being measured, I meant at what physical point, and using what type device.  You are not measuring load physically at the GPU itself, and you're using a UPS display (or software) to read the load at the line side of your PSU.  This is outside the chassis, and in fact isn't even measuring the actual load on the PSU itself.

Again, it is not appropriate to size a PSU on anything other than full system load, definitely not while running a single game (even if that's the only game you ever play on the PC).  You cannot (to repeat, cannot) determine actual PSU load by reading UPS software or meters/panel displays - such displays/software are not designed to sample or 'catch' max transients, as I already explained.  It's just not possible using that measurement.  Among other things, your UPS is not on the load side of a switch-mode power supply that is always running at <100% efficiency, so it's not even capable of telling you the exact load on your PSU - and certainly not in real-time.

(BTW, if the "high accuracy" of measurement you're referring to is by using the free PowerPanel Personal software that your UPS supports, then I'd say it's not likely anywhere nearly as accurate nor capable as you think it is).

If you have a 4090 that's power limited to 450W, great.  But that doesn't mean that every 4090 will be limited the same way.  As a specific example, my Asus TUF unit is set up at 600W (and that's both in VBIOS and a proper 12VHPWR cable).  Again, there have been documented tests showing 4090 power excursions to 700W - which your UPS is unable to catch and report.  The power reported by these types of measurement devices is absolutely limited by how fast they can sample, and the transient excursions can happen and be gone faster than the sample rate of those devices.

Not only that, but transients like this are absorbed/obscured by the electronics inside the PSU; anyone who's ever waited on DC LEDs inside a PC to extinguish after switching off a PSU has witnessed this.  Such GPU power excursions will never be felt at the line side of a PSU, much less the measuring circuit in a UPS that powers the PC - but they will be felt at the 12v (low voltage/load side) of the PSU itself, which is why the PSU must be able to handle them. 

The reason your system might not experience this type of GPU load is precisely because your GPU is power limited to 450W.  Typically, that's done because the manufacturer knows they used weaker VRMs in the hardware, and they limit the power to what those weaker components can handle.  Not all 4090s are that way.

This is also the exact same reason you cannot base any/every 4090 scenario on your experience:  You don't know what kind of PSU, cables, or the exact model of 4090 someone else might have, and you cannot say that your setup is representative of all others.  As I describe above, my own 4090 doesn't have the same power limit yours does - and neither do many others.  That is as factual and "real world" as it gets.

Also, 1200W is by no means "overkill" for a 4090-based system.  It allows for the maximum total system load x2, which means the PSU itself will run at max efficiency, per the 80Plus spec.  Factually, if you run a PSU at a higher load than 50%, it's efficiency decreases.  If my device has actually measured 658W max, and if I were using an 850W PSU then I'm certainly not operating at 50% load and thus definitely not max efficiency.  That means more heat, higher cost, etc.  These may be small factors, but they are absolutely meaningful nonetheless.  This isn't to say a 1200W PSU is required, but it's certainly not overkill if you're trying to achieve max efficiency - and that's a fact.

You're also dismissing that all three of the biggest GPU manufacturers in the US have recommended 1000W PSUs for some of their 4090 models.  So if someone happens to get one of those models of 4090, and follows your intimation that 850W is enough, they're actually disregarding the manufacturer's recommendations - and thus could be denied warranty service if there's ever a problem.  In fact, if the manufacturer recommends a 1000W PSU and someone has an 850W, then the manufacturer's support team would absolutely be within their rights to refuse any support.

As much as you dismiss the specs, they exist for a reason.  It's foolish to ignore that reason when designing power systems, and professionals know better than doing that.  Never mind that it makes zero sense to spend thousands on a PC with a 4090, but cheap out on the PSU to save 2% of the cost.

Edited October 10, 2023 by kksnowbear

[dburne]

4090 with all 4 power connections attached, draws over 600w by itself under load. Unless of course you underclock/undervolt it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a 4090 I would think. I have a 1000w power supply. I would never recommend less.

[kksnowbear]

3 minutes ago, dburne said:

4090 with all 4 power connections attached, draws over 600w by itself under load. Unless of course you underclock/undervolt it. Which kinda defeats the purpose of a 4090 I would think. I have a 1000w power supply. I would never recommend less.

This is true, provided of course the 4-cable power "tail" is configured correctly.  (There have been cables provided - with 1000W PSUs - that still limit the GPU to 450W).

There are also three-cable variants that signal the GPU that the PSU can provide 600W.  I know this because I have one

As explained above, it is wise to leave room as 'overhead' in sizing a power supply - how much will depend on a lot of factors including desired efficiency and overall system configuration.  Certainly nothing excessive about a 1000W unit (or even 1200).  As noted, the manufacturer's recommendation for some 4090s is 1000W, and for good reason.

Actual load on a PC switched-mode PSU cannot be measured effectively by a UPS or a plug-in 'wall wart' type watt meter.  They are useful, I'm not saying they're not - I have two of the watt meters and at least a dozen UPS units.  But they have limitations as applies to measuring power, and those limitations are often overlooked or misunderstood (as above in this thread).

[Taterbootz]

3 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

As much as you dismiss the specs, they exist for a reason.  It's foolish to ignore that reason when designing power systems, and professionals know better than doing that.  Never mind that it makes zero sense to spend thousands on a PC with a 4090, but cheap out on the PSU to save 2% of the cost.

 

The difference in efficiency between 50% and 100% load is 4% at the most.      The amount you'd "save" by spending more on a larger PSU is more than likely less than you'd have saved by buying the cheaper power supply from the start, unless your power is astronomically expensive where you live.  And if it is, getting a 13900k and a 4090 then arguing over 4% of efficiency in regards to power cost is kinda ridiculous and semantic at that point. 

 

 

[kksnowbear]

Not sure where you saw me say anything about saving the difference in cost of a more expensive PSU. (Oh, wait...that would be because I didn't say that.)

However since you brought it up, you will absolutely save money by running a PSU more efficiently.  This applies regardless of how much or how little your power costs (and regardless of how much or little the actual amount you save is, either percentage or cost).  Using less costs less.

And, unlike saving money *once* by buying a cheaper power supply, the efficiency savings will continue indefinitely (for the life of the power supply, and these days, even the warranty is 10 years for high-quality units). The more you run the PC, the more you save.

One-time cost difference in the purchase of a cheaper power supply cannot do that. 

And that's a fact.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by kksnowbear

[Sile]

Please don‘t derail this topic. This is not the right place for a PSU discussion.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Sile

[BigBANGtheory]

On 10/3/2023 at 10:15 PM, stottyboy said:

Have you got it up and running? How does it perform for you? Does the reality match expectation?

So when I 1st tried the Crystal the picture was amazing but the performance was dreadful, now I've got it setup properly its simply a stunning experience. Coming from an HTC Vive Pro 2 originally with a 3080 now 4090 I was expecting the Crystal to be better of course but actually seeing it and with decent frame rates I'd say its exceeded my expectations.

The only thing I'm a bit meh about is the horizontal FoV (vertical has improved a lot for me of the VP2), however I am hoping/expecting the new wider FoV lenses to get that right as its nowhere near the advertised values.

I don't know what experience you saw but for me I can sit in the Apache (still needing optimisation imho) and without moving my head or body, just my eyes I can see/read every instrument clearly whilst very clearly seeing objects through the window. This is the 1st time I've been able to do that in DCS... whilst keeping obviously decent framerates in flight especially close to the ground which obviously in a heli you can do at 5-10m Alt.

If you are not seeing that then imho:

1. Something is not setup correctly, HAGS in particular kills framerate in DCS. In fairness this isn't an easy process there is quite a lot to go through but if you lookup TallyMouse on YouTube he did a really good video recently that walks you through it.

2. Your PC needs more oomph, my PC for reference is 7800X3D/4090/64GB DDR5 CL30 6200

 

[Taterbootz]

On 10/10/2023 at 3:07 PM, kksnowbear said:

Not sure where you saw me say anything about saving the difference in cost of a more expensive PSU. (Oh, wait...that would be because I didn't say that.)

However since you brought it up, you will absolutely save money by running a PSU more efficiently.  This applies regardless of how much or how little your power costs (and regardless of how much or little the actual amount you save is, either percentage or cost).  Using less costs less.

And, unlike saving money *once* by buying a cheaper power supply, the efficiency savings will continue indefinitely (for the life of the power supply, and these days, even the warranty is 10 years for high-quality units). The more you run the PC, the more you save.

One-time cost difference in the purchase of a cheaper power supply cannot do that. 

And that's a fact.

 

 

So what exactly was your point by bringing up efficiency?  Efficiency doesnt matter at all except when determining x per y.  What are your two variables that its more efficient at and why should that matter to someone who wants to play DCS? 

It doesnt, except in terms of cost.  If you're building a 13900k/4090 system, efficiency of cost isnt something you've factored in your build.  Otherwise you'd get a lower powered computer and be okay with lower quality graphics.  You're talking to people that are overbuilding their computers to get maximum performance, not efficiency. 

I dont factor in efficiency when I'm modifying my car, because efficiency isnt why I'm modifying the car. 

You're arguing a point that nobody cares about but you and acting like everyone else is the idiot.  You can be technically correct and still wrong.  Context matters. 

The mission defines the goal.

[kksnowbear]

I thought someone had asked to leave the PSU subject alone.

Don't preach at me, you have no idea what you're talking about.  I build computers professionally, and have for over 40 years.  The people who pay me to do this vote with their dollars about whether I know what I'm doing.  And plenty of people besides me care about things like efficiency - although it's nice of you to decide what everyone cares about.  Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean no one else does.

I already (accurately) described the one-time cost difference vs. continuing savings.  And my original point about cost of the PSU had nothing to do with efficiency of itself, regardless.  Apparently you're incapable of understanding that.

Sorry for your lack of understanding, but it doesn't change the facts.

Now, since someone was nice enough to ask, here's an idea: Leave it be.

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by kksnowbear

[j9murphy]

In an effort to return this thread back to its original intent:) .. my crystal arrived and should be able tontry it out and give some comments Sunday or Monday

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

[Taterbootz]

21 hours ago, kksnowbear said:

I thought someone had asked to leave the PSU subject alone.

Don't preach at me, you have no idea what you're talking about.  I build computers professionally, and have for over 40 years.  The people who pay me to do this vote with their dollars about whether I know what I'm doing.  And plenty of people besides me care about things like efficiency - although it's nice of you to decide what everyone cares about.  Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean no one else does.

I already (accurately) described the one-time cost difference vs. continuing savings.  And my original point about cost of the PSU had nothing to do with efficiency of itself, regardless.  Apparently you're incapable of understanding that.

Sorry for your lack of understanding, but it doesn't change the facts.

Now, since someone was nice enough to ask, here's an idea: Leave it be.

 

 

Well, considering nobody but you has asked about efficiency of power supplies, it doesnt seem that many people care about the efficiency of power supplies. 

They are either effective or ineffective. 

Now, since I've said my peace:  Go away. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Taterbootz

[baco30]

Hello. Had mine last week.

Previously Odyssey+, G1, G2 (I had to change the G2 due to a defect that appeared after the warranty expired)

Ryzen 9 5900x, 4090, 32Gb 3600

Clarity is amazing! now I can read clearly every small placard in any corner of the cockpits. 

The motion smoothing is not as good as the G2 with OpenXR toolkit, but at least now I don't have all the side effects like HUD or objects behind the propeller disc flickering/distorted.

Another side effect of G2 is the "doubling" of other planes moving in the peripheral view.  On the Crystal, I guess thanks to DFR, it's gone.

Bad point is confort: I'll try the Apache strap...

Price: 3 times the G2...  

Overall I'm satisfied

 

Amendement: with mbucchia's "Compulsive Smoothing" the MS is good with none of the above side effects 

Edited October 22, 2023 by baco30