120fps in Index with this setup?

[Rainman2020]

Hey

I have narrowed my search for my first VR headset down to two contenders, the Index and the upcoming Reverb G2.

The Reverb G2 can only run 90hz, so it's easier to get iracing, ac, automobilista 2, etc run at 90fps to match.

My understanding is that consistency of frame rate is more important than the hz/fps (especially in terms of preventing motion sickness), but that the Index's 120fps/hz has been curing a lot of people's motion sickness. They get motion sick on a Rift S easily, use the Index, no more motion sickness. See this thread for one:


So, leaning towards the Index due to the 120hz and to the reports of it helping with motion sickness (not to mention the best headset in most every other way), but my question is, can i actually run the above named games at 120fps with the following computer setup. Jeff Ford (of FEG) is going to build the computer

i5-9600KF OC'd to 4.7-5.2 (Jeff says OC'd this way it is comparable to the i9-9900K for much less money, he adds the OC for free)
RTX 2070 Super (he will OC this also)
16 GB DDR4 (he will OC this also)

I am thinking the video card may be the weak link there, and i do not want to spend $700+ on a video card if possible. Maybe i should wait for the new Nvidia cards coming out in September? Maybe i could get somehow into a 2080ti equivalent for around $500 in a few months when the new cards come out.

I want to be able to run at a consistent real (not projected) 120fps to match the 120hz (and at good graphic quality settings). If i can only run the Index at 90hz in the racing games above that i want to play, then i may as well wait for the Reverb G2 and save $400 (and live with the reduced FOV), since the G2 is basically the Index in every other way.

Thanks!
Randy

 

[2020 Supraman]

I've asked a lot of questions regarding GPU/CPU requirements and I tend to get mixed responses. A lot of people say 2080ti or go home, others say you can get consistent FPS by turning down graphics just a bit and its more than ok.

This is a good video on the Valve Index with sim racing, this guy is running a 1080ti which performs very similarly to a 2070 super. He goes over his settings, shadows are a no-go, unless you want to run at 80 FPS. At around 5:30 in the video is where he sets the refresh rate to 120 HZ, and it looks like he averages about 110 FPS.

Also, you can save money on the Index if you are just using it for sim racing because you don't need a lot of the accessories and that brings cost down closer to Reverb. Plus, remember Reverb G2 is coming out in a few months.

 

[Rainman2020]

Thanks, watched the video i think the 3rd time now Yeah, he is getting 120fps by turning down some things, but he mostly seems to be staying at 90fps, as he did say he didn't find that big a difference between 120 and 90, and he could turn the graphics settings up some.

I have my eye on the Reverb G2 for sure and it is 90fps, so if 90fps will work, then i can have the better graphics of the G2 headset + save $400 (and not have to worry about light boxes). The G2 will be out sometime this fall, but who knows how hard it will be to actually get then, and also thinking the first ones may have some flaws that they are still working out.

The Index is THE one to get, but the extra $400 over the G2 is a lot, especially when getting all the sim racing gear and upgrading your computer AND getting a VR headset all at the same time ($5K almost, so saving $400 is appealing if i get better graphics of the G2 and can handle 90fps and the smaller FOV.

Randy

 

[Rainman2020]

My main question though is still CAN i get 120fps on the system above in the Index in iRacing, AC, AMS2, etc without turning the graphics way down to unacceptable levels. If not, then either get a 2080ti (UGH, $$$), or wait for the new Nvidia cards to come out and then maybe can get 2080ti performance at $500 prices, which would then allow 120fps on most racing games without turning down the graphics much. Hmmm

Randy

 

[GagarynGaribaldi]

I have an i9 9900k and a 2080ti, both overclocked (i9 to 5k, 2080Ti curve - normally runs around 2025 MHz, GPU memory is OC'd to 8000 MHz and maintaining 120 FPS in AMS2 is not possible with graphic setting slower than I would like. At 90 FPS i can run a mix of high and ultra. Don't play iRacing - nor AC for a long time but I think I could set AC up to look decent in VR and maintain 120 maybe. I stick with 90 though.

 

[Rainman2020]

I have an i9 9900k and a 2080ti, both overclocked (i9 to 5k, 2080Ti curve - normally runs around 2025 MHz, GPU memory is OC'd to 8000 MHz and maintaining 120 FPS in AMS2 is not possible with graphic setting slower than I would like. At 90 FPS i can run a mix of high and ultra. Don't play iRacing - nor AC for a long time but I think I could set AC up to look decent in VR and maintain 120 maybe. I stick with 90 though.

Thanks.
That means that the Reverb G2 is the most logical target, since it maxes at 90hz, and, even with the higher resolution of that headset, i will likely be able to maintain 90fps, albeit likely with some reduced graphic settings. I might be in your range of graphics if i wait till the Fall (instead of getting a RTX 2070S now), as there is supposed to be a new Nvidia card coming out that is equivalent to a 2080ti, but for only about $700 instead of $1100+). The G2 is due to come out in the fall also, so starting to make sense to wait to put together my sim racing setup until this fall.

 

[GagarynGaribaldi]

Thanks.
That means that the Reverb G2 is the most logical target, since it maxes at 90hz, and, even with the higher resolution of that headset, i will likely be able to maintain 90fps, albeit likely with some reduced graphic settings. I might be in your range of graphics if i wait till the Fall (instead of getting a RTX 2070S now), as there is supposed to be a new Nvidia card coming out that is equivalent to a 2080ti, but for only about $700 instead of $1100+). The G2 is due to come out in the fall also, so starting to make sense to wait to put together my sim racing setup until this fall.

Not sure I follow your logic - it will be harder to run the G2 at a constant 90 FPS than it is the Index at 90 FPS as the G2 has a higher resolution.

The best time to buy any computer hardware is always in 6 months time - development never stops. ;-)

 

[Locoblade]

Yep as I thought was mentioned in the previous thread created on the subject, although the Reverb is only 90fps its also a LOT higher resolution. The Index is 1440×1600 per eye (total 4.6 Mpixel) whereas the Reverb (G1 and G2) is 2160 x 2160 giving a total of 9.3 MPixel, so 9.3 @ 90 is still more work for the GPU than 4.6 @ 120 even if supersampling rates (or the lack of needing it so much on a higher res headset) might close that gap somewhat. I guess CPU load might be more at 120hz than at 90 so Reverb may be slightly less CPU heavy, not sure?

 

[Rainman2020]

Not sure I follow your logic - it will be harder to run the G2 at a constant 90 FPS than it is the Index at 90 FPS as the G2 has a higher resolution.

The best time to buy any computer hardware is always in 6 months time - development never stops. ;-)

I totally agree on the 'always a better piece of hardware coming in 6 months', but this time it is true as the new video cards are due out in 2 months (as is the G2 headset).

What i meant on your statement leading me more towards the G2, yes, it will have more pixels to draw than the Index would with its higher resolution per eye, but i would think that keeping the G2 at 90fps would be easier than keeping the Index at 120fps (even with the lower resolution)

I might need a better card than the 2070S though to keep the G2 at 90fps also.

Randy

 

[Rainman2020]

Yep as I thought was mentioned in the previous thread created on the subject, although the Reverb is only 90fps its also a LOT higher resolution. The Index is 1440×1600 per eye (total 4.6 Mpixel) whereas the Reverb (G1 and G2) is 2160 x 2160 giving a total of 9.3 MPixel, so 9.3 @ 90 is still more work for the GPU than 4.6 @ 120 even if supersampling rates (or the lack of needing it so much on a higher res headset) might close that gap somewhat. I guess CPU load might be more at 120hz than at 90 so Reverb may be slightly less CPU heavy, not sure?

Guessing that the G2 at the higher resolution and 90fps will be easier to run than the Index at 120fps though. May need that new RTX 3080 card (supposedly it will be on par with a 2080ti) coming soon though to keep the graphics settings turned up to high even at 90fps though on the G2.

Randy

 

[Tomber]

Without a 2080ti you will see a lot of reprojection happening or you are running at really low settings.
I wonder why nobody mentioned running the Index at 144hz and using motion smoothing always on, which results in only needing 77fps from the game engine with the drawback you get some artifacts (esp around the a-pillar) from blending the frames. For me the best compromise with my 1080ti.
Regarding motion sickness, a lot of people ignore reprojection and get sick because of the stuttering/change to reprojection. There is no 110fps on average, that means it runs ~10% reprojected which is ok in a regular VR game but really had when you have continuous movement. The game either runs on 120fps or 60fps (or 40,30,24...) reprojected, there is no in-between. The change between these frame rates comes with frames not rendered in time (late state) and an uncomfortable hiccup when the game engine changes to a lower max FPS and catches up.
Everyone doing VR sim racing should take the time to enable the performance graph and check the frame timings of his games and do the tweaking based on that:

SteamVR/Frame Timing - Valve Developer Community

developer.valvesoftware.com

Also keep some ginger chews nearby, they can save the day. I'm using VR for 6 years now and I got motion sick a lot in the beginning. Most important is to stop immediately when you feel the motion sickness kicking in, ginger, fresh air and a break till you feel ready to go back in, don't push yourself. I once pushed it way to far with a space game and couldn't use my headset for 6 months because just looking at it gave me sweaty hands and that feeling. I'm over it now, but after driving for 60 minutes I still take a break and chew some ginger (just because I like them now).

 

[Rainman2020]

Without a 2080ti you will see a lot of reprojection happening or you are running at really low settings.
I wonder why nobody mentioned running the Index at 144hz and using motion smoothing always on, which results in only needing 77fps from the game engine with the drawback you get some artifacts (esp around the a-pillar) from blending the frames. For me the best compromise with my 1080ti.
Regarding motion sickness, a lot of people ignore reprojection and get sick because of the stuttering/change to reprojection. There is no 110fps on average, that means it runs ~10% reprojected which is ok in a regular VR game but really had when you have continuous movement. The game either runs on 120fps or 60fps (or 40,30,24...) reprojected, there is no in-between. The change between these frame rates comes with frames not rendered in time (late state) and an uncomfortable hiccup when the game engine changes to a lower max FPS and catches up.
Everyone doing VR sim racing should take the time to enable the performance graph and check the frame timings of his games and do the tweaking based on that:

SteamVR/Frame Timing - Valve Developer Community

developer.valvesoftware.com

Also keep some ginger chews nearby, they can save the day. I'm using VR for 6 years now and I got motion sick a lot in the beginning. Most important is to stop immediately when you feel the motion sickness kicking in, ginger, fresh air and a break till you feel ready to go back in, don't push yourself. I once pushed it way to far with a space game and couldn't use my headset for 6 months because just looking at it gave me sweaty hands and that feeling. I'm over it now, but after driving for 60 minutes I still take a break and chew some ginger (just because I like them now).

Isn't using 'reprojection' or 'motion smoothing' one of the main triggers for motion sickness? Since it doesn't feel natural or something? I was told that you run it at a true 90fps or a true 120fps (i.e. no computer smoothing/reprojection) to get the best chance to avoid motion sickness.

I will order some ginger chews (any ideas what kind?)

Randy

 

[Rainman2020]

I have an i9 9900k and a 2080ti, both overclocked (i9 to 5k, 2080Ti curve - normally runs around 2025 MHz, GPU memory is OC'd to 8000 MHz and maintaining 120 FPS in AMS2 is not possible with graphic setting slower than I would like. At 90 FPS i can run a mix of high and ultra. Don't play iRacing - nor AC for a long time but I think I could set AC up to look decent in VR and maintain 120 maybe. I stick with 90 though.

Given that i will have something close to a i9 9900k for my CPU and a 2070S only for my GPU, i seem to be hearing that it will be tough to run 120fps consistently on an Index. Although, i have heard iRacing is the most optimized to VR, maybe i can hit a consistent 120fps there?

I wonder if i could hit 120fps in something like Half Life with that config?

Randy

 

[Tomber]

Switching between the full frame rate and reprojection is the worst. Maintaining those sweet 90 or even 120 is definitely the goal, but as I mentioned, you can get a good comprise 144hz targeting the motion smoothing always on at 72fps (77 mentioned before is of course not half of 144). I can highly recommend everyone to try this with an index if you can stand those small graphical glitches in foreground objects. As you normally focus on the road ahead of you, you won't notice them as much.
For Dirt Rallye 2.0 I'm running at 90fps with very low settings, but just because there is so much more movement, like jumping and constant tilting of the car, where reprojection really is motion sickness inducing. Normal track racing games are very linear and smooth in motion compared.
With your planned hardware setup, you will have a lot of fun and give my advice a try in comparison. In the end the overall experience in VR is different and when you get lost in driving, you will not notice lower graphical settings.

The American Gingerbons are the ones I prefer, but you should try what your sweets aisle is offering you, spicier=better. You can also get ginger capsules if you don't like the ginger taste, but the saliva from chewing help calming down the stomach. Brewing (iced) ginger tea is also an option.

Last comment, on motion sickness, the outside in tracking, esp. the one the Vive and index use are much more precise. Some people are very sensitive to those very small changes in motion (and them not being represented in VR, either because the low refresh rate or interpolated/smoothened motion) which leads to the described big difference between rift s and index. During sim racing you also get quite some vibrations from you ffb wheel (tactile, motion rig..) which adds up.

 

[cyberct]

Racing on the Index in 144hz is phenomenal. I had an Oculus Rift for 3 years before finally buying the Index (delivered 2 weeks ago). The main reason I bought the Index is because I felt 90hz and the somewhat limited FOV on the Rift were underwealming in VR racing. Boy was I right! It's worth the purchase! Note that for other games where you just stand (or teleport), 90hz and 144hz is not a very noticeable difference. It's very noticeable with constant fast game speed.

I have a 9700K OC'd to 5GHz all cores and a 2080ti. If I turn AC settings to either medium or low, (and disabled all AC shadows), AF x 8 and AA x 4, and the Index resolution set to 70% in Steam VR, I maintain that 144hz nearly all the time if there's only a few cars on the screen. With many cars on the screen, there's still reprojection, but it's not too bad. Oddly enough my GPU usage is abouy 60% and CPU useage about 50% if that. When going higher resolution it really bogs the frame rate down. Guess there are calculations not capable but not captured in GPU/CPU useage either?

long story short: you want that high refresh rate and larger FOV. MUCH more immersive than just a higher resolution (if 90fps is even maintainable most of the time)

You mention motion sickness ... let me share a bizarre discovery. I have a buttkicker gameer 2 under the seat, programmed through SimVibe SimXperience. I noticed that, when the rumble effects of bumps, etc I felt OK even at 90fps on the Rift. But turning off the Buttkicker ... I did start to feel nausia. Other simuli on the body seems to help with VR motion sickness. Plus, having subs in the sim rig is a great immersion addition in general.

 

[Rainman2020]

Racing on the Index in 144hz is phenomenal. I had an Oculus Rift for 3 years before finally buying the Index (delivered 2 weeks ago). The main reason I bought the Index is because I felt 90hz and the somewhat limited FOV on the Rift were underwealming in VR racing. Boy was I right! It's worth the purchase! Note that for other games where you just stand (or teleport), 90hz and 144hz is not a very noticeable difference. It's very noticeable with constant fast game speed.

I have a 9700K OC'd to 5GHz all cores and a 2080ti. If I turn AC settings to either medium or low, (and disabled all AC shadows), AF x 8 and AA x 4, and the Index resolution set to 70% in Steam VR, I maintain that 144hz nearly all the time if there's only a few cars on the screen. With many cars on the screen, there's still reprojection, but it's not too bad. Oddly enough my GPU usage is abouy 60% and CPU useage about 50% if that. When going higher resolution it really bogs the frame rate down. Guess there are calculations not capable but not captured in GPU/CPU useage either?

long story short: you want that high refresh rate and larger FOV. MUCH more immersive than just a higher resolution (if 90fps is even maintainable most of the time)

You mention motion sickness ... let me share a bizarre discovery. I have a buttkicker gameer 2 under the seat, programmed through SimVibe SimXperience. I noticed that, when the rumble effects of bumps, etc I felt OK even at 90fps on the Rift. But turning off the Buttkicker ... I did start to feel nausia. Other simuli on the body seems to help with VR motion sickness. Plus, having subs in the sim rig is a great immersion addition in general.

Super interesting idea on the butt kicker thing! I had heard (and it makes sense) that the motion systems help a LOT with motion sickness in VR, so makes sense that the butt kicker would too. I had not even looked into getting a butt kicker, will check it out. Also, what did you mean by 'having subs in the sim rig'? You mean subwoofers (i have no idea)?

Man on your Index feedback, JUST ordered the Rift S for $399, now you have me wanting the Index again, sheesh! Was going to start with the Rift S, then graduate to the Reverb G2 when it comes out and has lenses for it, unless i couldn't get past 1) the motion sickness 2) the small 110 FOV or 3) the non-awesome controllers of the Index. If any of those seem to be a big issue for me, planning on going straight to the Index as my Rift S upgrade rather than the Reverb G2 as my upgrade.

However, there is a lot to be said for just going straight for the Index, due to the possible helping with motion sickness + the bigger FOV + better controllers. You can argue that if i buy the Rift S, buy the lenses for it at $70, then upgrade say around Christmas to the G2, and then take a $100+ loss on the Rift S when selling it used, my grand total would be $600 for the Reverb G2 + $100 loss on the Rift S when selling it + $70 throwing away the lenses i get for the Rift S = $770 total, which is just $230 more to just get the Index outright. Hmmm

Note that my PC Builder (Jeff Ford, who has built 1000s of sim racing computer/VR/sim racing gear setups) says that his least favorite headset for sim racing is the Index, but he has not elaborated on why. Does the Index have unique problems with sim racing, or with iRacing (Jeff's favorite i know)? If so, what are they?

Man, figuring out which VR headset to get for your first one has been a tough decision!

Thanks
Randy

 

[Rainman2020]

Racing on the Index in 144hz is phenomenal. I had an Oculus Rift for 3 years before finally buying the Index (delivered 2 weeks ago). The main reason I bought the Index is because I felt 90hz and the somewhat limited FOV on the Rift were underwealming in VR racing. Boy was I right! It's worth the purchase! Note that for other games where you just stand (or teleport), 90hz and 144hz is not a very noticeable difference. It's very noticeable with constant fast game speed.

I have a 9700K OC'd to 5GHz all cores and a 2080ti. If I turn AC settings to either medium or low, (and disabled all AC shadows), AF x 8 and AA x 4, and the Index resolution set to 70% in Steam VR, I maintain that 144hz nearly all the time if there's only a few cars on the screen. With many cars on the screen, there's still reprojection, but it's not too bad. Oddly enough my GPU usage is abouy 60% and CPU useage about 50% if that. When going higher resolution it really bogs the frame rate down. Guess there are calculations not capable but not captured in GPU/CPU useage either?

long story short: you want that high refresh rate and larger FOV. MUCH more immersive than just a higher resolution (if 90fps is even maintainable most of the time)

You mention motion sickness ... let me share a bizarre discovery. I have a buttkicker gameer 2 under the seat, programmed through SimVibe SimXperience. I noticed that, when the rumble effects of bumps, etc I felt OK even at 90fps on the Rift. But turning off the Buttkicker ... I did start to feel nausia. Other simuli on the body seems to help with VR motion sickness. Plus, having subs in the sim rig is a great immersion addition in general.

So, Cyberct, back to the original thread question. I will have an i9-9900 but only a 2080S, will i be able to run racing games at 120fps/hz using the Index and still have nice graphics? Note that i am planning on getting the 3080 or some such when it comes out, so will be close to the 2080ti then i would guess but in the meantime i am running a 2080S.

Also, is running at 144hz really better noticeably than 120hz?

Randy

 

[cyberct]

Yes by subs I meant subwoofer. Honestly 1 is just fine. I know people have up to 4 but I'd guess 1 is 75% there already.

I have no idea why Jeff Ford doesn't' like the Index. The Index does have some glare, but if you adjust he headset on your head it does help. The pros I mentioned above beat out the glare for sure. I could never go back to 90hz for racing.

I'll have to set the refresh to 120hz from 144hz the next time I play and I'll report back.

The 2080 super may be able to handle 120hz on medium settings. You always have the 3000 series upgrade path down the road (I will be upgrading to the 3080ti).

 

[cyberct]

I got home later than anticipated but was able to mess around with the Index. So here's the deal between 120fps and 144fps: Yes, I an tell a difference but only when using a car like an F1 style car and by looking at the ground as I drive over it. Otherwise, it's hard to tell.

Here's some even better news. There's a LOT less async warp going on at 120hz. I was even able to bump AF to 16X and world detail to very high. Made no difference. I guess that even though my CPU usage is @ 50% in both scenarios, it struggles to do 144fps at times but handles 120fps no problem. I'll be using 120fps from now on and you should be good to go RainMan2020

 

[Rainman2020]

I got home later than anticipated but was able to mess around with the Index. So here's the deal between 120fps and 144fps: Yes, I an tell a difference but only when using a car like an F1 style car and by looking at the ground as I drive over it. Otherwise, it's hard to tell.

Here's some even better news. There's a LOT less async warp going on at 120hz. I was even able to bump AF to 16X and world detail to very high. Made no difference. I guess that even though my CPU usage is @ 50% in both scenarios, it struggles to do 144fps at times but handles 120fps no problem. I'll be using 120fps from now on and you should be good to go RainMan2020

What racing game(s) were you using when running at 120fps? I am wanting to use iRacing, AC and AMS2.

Randy