Is it at all possible to build an occulus capable computer for about 1000$?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48025560]Is it at all possible to build an occulus capable computer for about 1000$?[/QUOTE]
Depends what components you already have, i.e. hard drives, peripherals, monitors, etc. But basically, yeah, should be.
[QUOTE=Clavus;48025532]I shoved my stuff in a Coolermaster Elite 130:
[img]http://assets.coolermaster.com/global/uploadfile/upload/images/case/Elite130-dimensions.jpg[/img]
Those Bitfenix ones are still quite big.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but they look cool and have great airflow.
[editline]22nd June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48025560]Is it at all possible to build an occulus capable computer for about 1000$?[/QUOTE]
Definitely. A standard i5-GTX970 build will run anywhere from $800-1000. Potentially less, sometimes more, but usually in that range.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48025668]Yeah, but they look cool and have great airflow.
[editline]22nd June 2015[/editline]
Definitely. A standard i5-GTX970 build will run anywhere from $800-1000. Potentially less, sometimes more, but usually in that range.[/QUOTE]
How well will that run occulus?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48025701]How well will that run occulus?[/QUOTE]
it's the recommended specs I think
alright, well I have a 500 GB hard drive, a 750 watt power supply, and two monitors that i like... and 4 gb of ram... that probably ain't enough
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;48025761]alright, well I have a 500 GB hard drive, a 750 watt power supply, and two monitors that i like... and 4 gb of ram... that probably ain't enough[/QUOTE]
Get 8GB of RAM, it's only $50-60 right now. A 1TB hard drive's $50 as well.
The actual build, if you don't do anything too fancy, should only run you $850-900. Processor and graphics card should only be $600 or so.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48025922]Get 8GB of RAM, it's only $50-60 right now. A 1TB hard drive's $50 as well.
The actual build, if you don't do anything too fancy, should only run you $850-900. Processor and graphics card should only be $600 or so.[/QUOTE]
But before you go out to build an Rift-spec rig... just wait till you actually order the Rift. Components will have fallen in price by then.
[QUOTE=Clavus;48025957]But before you go out to build an Rift-spec rig... just wait till you actually order the Rift. Components will have fallen in price by then.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. And there should be new stuff out too. Six months is a long time for computers.
I also just want a better gaming rig
[editline]22nd June 2015[/editline]
cuz damn star citizen/ Elite dangerous
[QUOTE=Clavus;48025957]But before you go out to build an Rift-spec rig... just wait till you actually order the Rift. Components will have fallen in price by then.[/QUOTE]
That is weird considering intel cpu's here in belgium/netherlands have gained in price. I got a I5 4670k more than a year ago. And now it costs like 20euro more.
But yeah components do tend to fall in price. AMD better step up with some competition. To anyone holding out on the 970 card and you can wait id advise you to do so these things might actaully drop quite a bit within 6 months we still got.
Im already building my rig for the vive thought. Just waiting on skylake cpu's that will launch in august/september. Ive got my DDR4 ram already beceuse im afraid it'll actaully go up in price due to demand on new boards that come with skylake lol.
I'm guessing that, since a lot of people will be buying new gear for VR, that specific gear won't really drop in price. They're smart and they know the demand will be there no matter what.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;48026125]I'm guessing that, since a lot of people will be buying new gear for VR, that specific gear won't really drop in price. They're smart and they know the demand will be there no matter what.[/QUOTE]
They're always releasing new hardware, so old hardware must be discounted. Besides, the 970 is so relatively cheap BECAUSE of VR, to get the masses back in the habit of buying the newest greatest GPUs.
Some pretty important news: Palmer says the rifts display will improve significantly between now and launch.
[url]http://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-4k-display/[/url]
Won't that make it much more performance intensive?
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;48032406]Won't that make it much more performance intensive?[/QUOTE]
I doubt the resolution will improve. It'll be other details, such as pixel fill-rate, colour range, latency improvements, etc.
[QUOTE=Orkel;48032377]Some pretty important news: Palmer says the rifts display will improve significantly between now and launch.
[url]http://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-4k-display/[/url][/QUOTE]
That GIF in the article
[img]http://giant.gfycat.com/CooperativeTameArgentinehornedfrog.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Clavus;48032626]I doubt the resolution will improve. It'll be other details, such as pixel fill-rate, colour range, latency improvements, etc.[/QUOTE]
The article speculates that it's actually the 4K AMOLED Samsung screens rumoured to be coming.
Not sure about this though. They've announced the resolution, and min/recommended specs - both of those would change if a new display went in?
Updated the OP with some of the latest info and some Valve stuff.
[QUOTE=Flumbooze;48032406]Won't that make it much more performance intensive?[/QUOTE]
Even if it's a 4K screen, you can still render at 1080p. It should, in theory (I haven't tried or seen this tested before) give a better image quality than a standard 1080p monitor because of the massive pixel density on a tiny 4K screen.
[QUOTE=Beacon;48032805]The article speculates that it's actually the 4K AMOLED Samsung screens rumoured to be coming.
Not sure about this though. They've announced the resolution, and min/recommended specs - both of those would change if a new display went in?[/QUOTE]
supersampling a lower resolution onto a denser screen will still improve the visual quality, and probably perform a lot better supersampled than trying to run anything at [I]full res [/I]on a 4k screen (which would require two graphics cards to run, right?)
[QUOTE=dai;48033484] [I]full res [/I]on a 4k screen (which would require two graphics cards to run, right?)[/QUOTE]
this post suddenly made me think about how in the future this will be hilarious
i know that google cardboard isn't the best vr in the world, but on my phone that has 2560x1440 it looks extremely low-res
do i have to get worried about getting a "first-gen" vr headset? :tinfoil:
So, when can we expect Valve/HTC to start making announcements? The Vive is supposedly launching this year, it's the end of June, but still no info on launch date, price, final specs, recommended system specs, launch library, public demos etc.
90's failures should be the free space, and wouldn't dactyl count as part of that or should it have the special privilege of being a separate one
[QUOTE=dai;48033484]supersampling a lower resolution onto a denser screen will still improve the visual quality, and probably perform a lot better supersampled than trying to run anything at [I]full res [/I]on a 4k screen (which would require two graphics cards to run, right?)[/QUOTE]
It's upscaling. Supersampling is the other way around, where you render out a high resolution image and then display it at a lower resolution.
The rest you're right about. Unlike CRT's, LCDs suck at running at arbitrary resolutions because they have discrete pixels. Running 1024x768 on a 1280x960 monitor for example looks blurry and like garbage, much worse than it would be if you were running 1024x768 natively. This problem however gets reduced dramatically with higher resolutions because with more pixels there's less "spilling over pixels" approximation of the lower resolution.
At 4k, the problem should disappear almost entirely. This is especially important with VR because the pixel density is more important than the raw resolution. It's the reason you get the screen door effect, and while you can reduce it with improved optics, it's just a bandaid to the deeper problem. The only way to really solve it is to increase the pixel density.
So yeah, although I doubt the production Rift will have a 4k screen, if it did, that would be a huge improvement regardless of if you can run it at native or not. At worst, you have something that you can grow into as GPUs/CPUs get stronger, rather than always being limited by the display.
[QUOTE=dai;48033876]90's failures should be the free space, and wouldn't dactyl count as part of that or should it have the special privilege of being a separate one[/QUOTE]
[I]free space[/I]
it is a vive joke
[QUOTE=Orkel;48033828][img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CH0PLvVUsAAY0wc.png:large[/img][/QUOTE]
I'm taking this to the Reggie Fils-Aime thread. Can I just preemptively call Bingo?
[editline]23rd June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Why485;48033885]It's upscaling. Supersampling is the other way around, where you render out a high resolution image and then display it at a lower resolution.
The rest you're right about. Unlike CRT's, LCDs suck at running at arbitrary resolutions because they have discrete pixels. Running 1024x768 on a 1280x960 monitor for example looks blurry and like garbage, much worse than it would be if you were running 1024x768 natively. This problem however gets reduced dramatically with higher resolutions because with more pixels there's less "spilling over pixels" approximation of the lower resolution.
At 4k, the problem should disappear almost entirely. This is especially important with VR because the pixel density is more important than the raw resolution. It's the reason you get the screen door effect, and while you can reduce it with improved optics, it's just a bandaid to the deeper problem. The only way to really solve it is to increase the pixel density.
So yeah, although I doubt the production Rift will have a 4k screen, if it did, that would be a huge improvement regardless of if you can run it at native or not. At worst, you have something that you can grow into as GPUs/CPUs get stronger, rather than always being limited by the display.[/QUOTE]
Sort of. You can upscale as long as you have a 1:4 pixel conversion ratio. Anything less than that, and the monitor has to blend pixels.
Which is why 1080p to 4K should be fine, because it's close enough to 1:4 that you'll never notice it, and the pixels are so small that it's indistinct.
Can any cables even carry 4k at 90hz? I'm struggling to get my 1440p monitor to work at 60hz even with HDMI 1.4 cables and everything.
Edit: I mean obv you could upscale from a lower resolution but if you wanted to run the rift at native resolution or higher, 4k wouldn't really make sense. I'm guessing they're improving specs other than resolution.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
