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: All CPUs Content
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
At the end you recommend the Ryzen 5/i5 but don't actually test it. Also, a 1700 or 1700X would be a better apples-to-apples 7700K price comparison.Reply
Great article and lots of good testing. Now, since we've determined the best CPU for VR, do you think, perhaps, that you could take different GPUs and slot them into a 7700K system to give us relative GPU performance? Say from the RX 480/580, 1060, 1070, 1080, and 1080Ti? Or possibly throw a Vega into the mix?Reply
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.
I don't know why you disregard the minimum requirements specified by Oculus, when your tests confirm that a Core i3 and FX CPU both run well with ASW. That was the whole point of Oculus lowering system requirements - the ASW feature means the system can be basically half as powerful and still deliver a playable experience.Reply
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 Core i3 had dropped-frame issues in CryEngine-based games that ASW didn't fix--for that reason, I'd try to free up budget for a quad-core if possible. The FX, of course, simply isn't balanced with a 1080 Ti (a point I tried to make in the conclusion after looking at the experiment's data). In the ends, as with regular PC gaming, it's a question of whether you want to "get going in VR" or have some room to turn up details and render 90 real frames per second. Leaning on ASW exclusively does introduce artifacts of its own--maybe we can illustrate that with slowed-down video in an upcoming piece (screenshots from the primer story may not be enough?). Thank you for the feedback!Reply
Please retest Pcars with a proper framerate.If you could also specify how many cars you have enabled in the run that would be nice.Reply
The CPU gets hit extremely hard the more cars you add.
These results are great data points but as other have pointed out, it seems you opened up a can of worms :-/. What about different configurations, different settings, older hardware, R9 290's instead of RX 480's / 580's etc etc. I love what you've given us so far, and i know you are definitely under time and budget constraints, but this begs a follow up article with more data points. Thanks for all you guys do though, i know you work hard and put out the best that you can, its just never enough for some of us :).Reply
I would be curious to see how a 2600k/2700k overclocked stacks up. A lot of people are stilling running those workhorses, and in many games they perform quite well despite being 5-6 years old.Reply
Well I have a 3770k running at 4.6 ghz with a 1080 ti ...............with the htc vive all my vr games run flawlessly.Reply
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.
I watched all those games on youtube, and not a single one made me want to play the game.Reply
Sorry, but 3D by itself is not a good reason to buy VR. All 3D games suck.
I wonder why every test have dropped frames? Have you done any investigation into what causes them? Even Gunjack with more than 400 fps have dropped frames? There must be a problem with a Windows process halting everything else? Maybe the same problem that have plaqued Win10 since the Creators Update with lag spikes in all games?Reply
Also I think it would maybe have been more appropiate if you had disabled ASW in these tests?