Chronos is one of the Rift’s launch titles, and at the game’s Epic detail settings, it’s one of the most graphically demanding workloads we’ve seen for VR.
Our test sequence lasts 80 seconds, starting from the protagonist’s first moments on the beach and ending before he passes through a specific doorway.
Thanks to the power of our GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, all five platforms avoid dropping into ASW mode through our Chronos benchmark. That doesn’t mean they perform similarly, though—there are clear differences in the frequency of dropped frames, indicated by red spikes in each interval chart.
We again see Intel’s Core i7-7700K achieve the lowest frame times over time. Curiously, it appears the Core i3 lands in second place, followed by the FX we’ve been recommending against. Intel’s Core i9 and AMD’s Ryzen 7 look like the last-place finishers.
Every platform enables a constant 90 FPS delivery to the Rift. But converting frame times to unconstrained FPS illustrates the differences in headroom each host processor offers.
It’s strange to see the Core i3 landing, as predicted, in second place, with AMD’s FX behind it (and ahead of Core i9/Ryzen). In a graph of CPU utilization over 60 seconds, Chronos only appears to use about 8% of our Core i7-7700K, suggesting that the game doesn’t even fully utilize one of the processor’s cores. It’s possible, then, that the fabrics and meshes touted by AMD and Intel serve to hurt the performance of their massively parallel CPUs by adding latency.
Although AMD’s FX-8350 causes the most dropped frames, Core i9-7900X and Ryzen 7 1800X do demonstrate the worst frame times in our 50th, 90th, 95th, and 99th percentile measurements. They also present some ugly worst-case frame time spikes that are clearly visible toward the end of our frame time over time line graph.
MORE: Best CPUs
MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy
MORE: All CPUs Content
You might also consider doing a VR at budget review pairing components that make sense in different budget segments. Like an i3 or i5/RX 480 or 1600, i5/1060 or 1070, i7/1070 or 1080, or something like that.
If the goal is to help speed up VR adoption we need ideas of how VR would work on a variety of system configurations. If people don't know if their borderline system can handle VR without an upgrade, they aren't going to even try it.
Of course you wouldn't want to combine a GTX 1080 Ti with a low-end CPU like that, but a Core i3 or FX CPU with a GTX 1050 Ti will get you going in VR.
I'm also disappointed that you didn't include Lone Echo in the test. A lot more relevant than a mobile port like Gunjack, and it seems to be one of the most CPU-intensive VR games so far.
But at the end of the day it's still great to get some data on general VR performance.
Next up, maybe a Core i5-7600K and some older-gen chips from Intel? People don't all have the newest hardware, and might want to see if they can get a VR headset without a PC platform upgrade.
The CPU gets hit extremely hard the more cars you add.
neither my video card nor cpu hit the 100% utilization mark.
if I had to I could still get a little more out of my cpu as I'm only hitting 40 degrees c.
was thinking of upgrading to 7700k but imo the difference in performance would be marginal.......so I will wait a little longer.
Sorry, but 3D by itself is not a good reason to buy VR. All 3D games suck.
Also I think it would maybe have been more appropiate if you had disabled ASW in these tests?