For many early adopters of Oculus’ Rift, EVE: Valkyrie was the experience that got them enthused about VR. CCP Games continues updating EVE, most recently with beta Touch support.
We ran our tests after the developer added Ultra-quality settings, applying volumetric lighting, multi-sample G-buffer anti-aliasing, specular highlights, Lens-Matched Shading, and Multi-Res Shading. These features were added specifically for owners of Nvidia GeForce GTX 1070, 1080, and 1080 Ti cards.
The Station 27 chronicle we used for testing isn’t particularly taxing, but it’s far more consistent than a chaotic dogfight would be. Consequently, we observe fairly even frame times from each platform.
All five CPUs work well enough with the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti to enable >90 FPS throughout our 200-second recording. The Core i9, Core i7, and Ryzen 7 deliver particularly clean-looking runs, while Intel’s Core i3 encounters a couple of additional dropped frames. FX-8350 drops 64 frames during the course of its benchmark. This doesn’t come as much of a surprise, given higher frame time variance and a propensity for breaking above the 11.1ms mark.
That brings up an interesting point: how are we seeing frame times in excess of 11.1ms from the FX-8350, but still experiencing 90 frames per second without dropping into ASW mode? If you look back at our Chronos results, the same thing happened. We did explore this phenomenon in FCAT VR: GPU And CPU Performance in Virtual Reality and determined that “...the envelope can expand/contract due to preemption/parallelization done by the VR runtime. Oculus' adaptive queue ahead feature is designed to facilitate this, so an 11ms cut-off is not absolute, though it’s generally true. In short, optimizations are not enough to keep you from dropping frames if you render at >11ms for an extended period of time.”
All of the calculated unconstrained frame rates exceed 100 FPS. However, Core i7-7700K’s frame times afford it a 36% advantage over FX-8350, a 22% lead over Core i3-6320, an 18% edge on Ryzen 7 1800X, and even a 9%-better finish than Core i9.
The Core i7, Core i9, Ryzen 7, and Core i3 frame times look good all the way through our 99th percentile measurements. FX-8350 is consistently ~2ms higher than the Core i3. And those two spikes visible in the frame time over time plot show up in this chart when we single-out each CPU’s worst frame time result.
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?