Though I am away from my stacks of hardware at the office attending Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Valve dropped a bomb on us today in the form of a new hardware performance test that gamers can use to determine if they are ready for the SteamVR revolution. The aptly named "SteamVR Performance Test" is a free title available through Steam that any user can download and run to get a report card on their installed hardware. No VR headset required!
And unlike the Oculus Compatibility Checker, the application from Valve runs actual game content to measure your system. Oculus' app only looks at the hardware on your system for certification, not taking into account the performance of your system in any way. (Overclockers and users with Ivy Bridge Core i7 processors have been reporting failed results on the Oculus test for some time.)
The SteamVR Performance Test runs a set of scenes from the Aperture Science Robot Repair demo, an experience developed directly for the HTC Vive and one that I was able to run through during CES last month. Valve is using a very interesting new feature called "dynamic fidelity" that adjusts image quality of the game in a way to avoid dropped frames and frame rates under 90 FPS in order to maintain a smooth and comfortable experience for the VR user. Though it is the first time I have seen it used, it sounds similar to what John Carmack did with the id Tech 5 engine, attempting to balance performance on hardware while maintaining a targeted frame rate.
The technology could be a perfect match for VR content where frame rates above or at the 90 FPS target are more important than visual fidelity (in nearly all cases). I am curious to see how Valve may or may not pursue and push this technology in its own games and for the Vive / Rift in general. I have some questions pending with them, so we'll see what they come back with.
A result for a Radeon R9 Fury provided by AMD
Valve's test offers a very simple three tiered breakdown for your system: Not Ready, Capable and Ready. For a more detailed explanation you can expand on the data to see metrics like the number of frames you are CPU bound on, frames below the very important 90 FPS mark and how many frames were tested in the run. The Average Fidelity metric is the number that we are reporting below and essentially tells us "how much quality" the test estimates you can run at while maintaining that 90 FPS mark. What else that fidelity result means is still unknown – but again we are trying to find out. The short answer is that the higher that number goes, the better off you are, and the more demanding game content you'll be able to run at acceptable performance levels. At least, according to Valve.
Because I am not at the office to run my own tests, I decided to write up this story using results from a third part. That third party is AMD – let the complaining begin. Obviously this does NOT count as independent testing but, in truth, it would be hard to cheat on these results unless you go WAY out of your way to change control panel settings, etc. The demo is self run and AMD detailed the hardware and drivers used in the results.
- Intel i7-6700K
- 2x4GB DDR4-2666 RAM
- Z170 motherboard
- Radeon Software 16.1.1
- NVIDIA driver 361.91
- Win10 64-bit
GPU | Score |
---|---|
2x Radeon R9 Nano | 11.0 |
GeForce GTX 980 Ti | 11.0 |
Radeon R9 Fury X | 9.6 |
Radeon R9 Fury | 9.2 |
GeForce GTX 980 | 8.1 |
Radeon R9 Nano | 8.0 |
Radeon R9 390X | 7.8 |
Radeon R9 390 | 7.0 |
GeForce GTX 970 | 6.5 |
These results were provided by AMD in an email to the media. Take that for what you will until we can run our own tests.
First, the GeForce GTX 980 Ti is the highest performing single GPU tested, with a score of 11 – because of course it goes to 11. The same score is reported on the multi-GPU configuration with two Radeon R9 Nanos so clearly we are seeing a ceiling of this version of the SteamVR Performance Test. With a single GPU score of 9.2, that is only a 19% scaling rate, but I think we are limited by the test in this case. Either way, it's great news to see that AMD has affinity multi-GPU up and running, utilizing one GPU for each eye's rendering. (AMD pointed out that users that want to test the multi-GPU implementation will need to add the -multigpu launch option.) I still need to confirm if GeForce cards scale accordingly. UPDATE: Ken at the office ran a quick check with a pair of GeForce GTX 970 cards with the same -multigpu option and saw no scaling improvements. It appears NVIDIA has work to do here.
Moving down the stack, its clear why AMD was so excited to send out these early results. The R9 Fury X and R9 Fury both come out ahead of the GeForce GTX 980 while the R9 Nano, R9 390X and R9 390 result in better scores than NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 970. This comes as no surprise – AMD's Radeon parts tend to offer better performance per dollar when it comes to benchmarks and many games.
There is obviously a lot more to consider than the results this SteamVR Performance Test provides when picking hardware for a VR system, but we are glad to see Valve out in front of the many, many questions that are flooding forums across the web. Is your system ready??
Please start including links
Please start including links in your articles, – http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/
It’s linked at the Source
It's linked at the Source section, but I'll add it higher up.
Scaling for the test should
Scaling for the test should be 0% since the test is running in windowed mode. Can you check to see if the Nvidia card had any load? It absolutely wont use two of my 7979ghz in windowed mode since the second card is still in ULPS. This is normal for windowed mode in general.
Notice how mine only shows one card?
http://s8.postimg.org/ou8ttw6n9/Untitled.jpg
Im stupid and failed to read
Im stupid and failed to read the entire blog. Sorry -multigpu launch option
After adding the multi-GPU
After adding the multi-GPU option I have 127% scaling with two 7970ghz cards and 7.9 score. GCN has some longevity.
Crossfire
http://s7.postimg.org/xpqfx5t1n/7970ghz_Xfire.jpg
Single card
http://s8.postimg.org/ou8ttw6n9/Untitled.jpg
That seems….unpossible.
That seems….unpossible.
I scored a 7.9 with my single
I scored a 7.9 with my single GTX 970 and 3570K… The arrow was in the upper middle of the green bar.
Not unpossible if the scoring
Not unpossible if the scoring is an assigned quality metric (i.e. just a numerical representation of the effects that the engine has turned on or off to try and hit the frame rate target, so somewhat arbitrary) rather than a pure(r) numerical representation of work done.
In such a case, if the scoring used is ill-calibrated this type of scaling will happen — though it’s maybe that the use of Affinity Multi-GPU here (rendering one eye per GPU) removes a bottleneck that exists when this 1-GPU system tries to render both eyes.
The benchmark seems a bit simplistic in that the results from R9 290X, 390, 390X are very similar indeed, and seem also to be largely CPU-independent.
I’d love to see a fuller article test/show this by running on all the decent GPUs from the last 2-3 generations and superimposing the plots, and then with moving a decentish but not top-end GPU (e.g. R9 290X) around a few CPUs (e.g. Q9650, i5-2500, i7-6700).
The R9 290X and R9 390X are
The R9 290X and R9 390X are essentially the same GPU, the 390X just has 8 GB instead of 4 GB and a slightly higher clock. The 290 just has slightly reduced core count and clock (in some cases). On a scale from 0 (possible to score 0?) to 11, I would expect these cards to be very close, if not exactly the same score due to limited precision. This benchmark probably runs fine in 4 GB, so the 8 GB on the 390 cards probably doesn’t help. Any 2 GB card is probably insufficient.
So would incredible double
So would incredible double precision performance of the 7970ghz explain my score? Its higher than a lot of newer cards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units
Still labouring on an X58
Still labouring on an X58 platform, 12gb of ddr3 @1333 and a xeon hexacore CPU overclocked.
It seems this platform will run VR with one exception, still on a gtx680 GPU and the performance is too low. I have a pair, but no Sli scaling – will it squeeze by when Sli is sorted out, or am I looking at at least an expensive GPU upgrade?
Dynamic fidelity like tech
Dynamic fidelity like tech was used in Halo 5 very successfully
Benchmark is smooth but
Benchmark is smooth but result not.
2.0GHz QuadCore processor with 4GB Nvidia GeForce GTX 960 (PCIe 2.0 x16 @ x4)
link: http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv53/Artthurko/SteamVR%20Performance%20Test%20Results_zps7pio3z9o.jpg
Where did you get a VIA
Where did you get a VIA C4650?
This is VIA EPIA M920-20Q
This is VIA EPIA M920-20Q Embedded Mini-ITX board. I bought it normally six months ago as other hardware.
link: http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv53/Artthurko/VIA%20QuadCore%20C4650_Win_10_64_bit_HWiNFO%2064_GTX960%20OC_zpsppzuqtes.jpg
yea i guess it should go
yea i guess it should go without saying that your cpu is junk, “(PCIe 2.0 x16 @ x4)” likely doesn’t help the card much either.
I agree. For me it is
I agree. For me it is important to playable / smooth 30 fps vs 1080p. I’m not complaining.
Star Wars Battlefront
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JotRC775YWg
Call of Duty Black Ops 3 Multiplayer
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXttAE2v2mM
METAL GEAR SOLID V: THE PHANTOM PAIN
link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N90Q7fkdzi4
etc.
Struggling to see why a
Struggling to see why a GTX680 isn’t capable, when a 970 is, and they’re not really more powerful..
is this a 2GB Vram vs 4GB vram debate when it comes to generations:
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-970-vs-GeForce-GTX-680
There is a significant
There is a significant difference between a 680 and a 970 and i would imagine that is the case but only in frame rate but frame times which will be much more important with VR.
But only should read not only
But only should read not only
gtx680 is around power of a
gtx680 is around power of a gtx770, gtx970 is little bit over or about a gtx780. Yes likely 2gb vs 4gb would hinder the case as well since gpu has to render scene for each side with a slightly different angel on it.
It is the same geometry, the
It is the same geometry, the same textures, etc; it just offsets the view slightly. I don’t see why this would take significantly more memory unless it is implemented badly. You are gong to have a larger frame buffer, but this is actually a small amount of memory in a modern system. It would be interesting to see how much memory the test case is actually using. I suspect 2 GB would be limiting texture resolution and other settings for this test case, even if was not rendering it twice for every frame. It would be interesting to compare if the test case allows rendering only one view at a time also. This would allow comparisons of resources between VR and non-VR rendering.
gpuboss is subject to error,
gpuboss is subject to error, a lot.
stop using it unless you know what you are looking at.
same goes for cpuboss
Dont know where you are
Dont know where you are seeing any scaling at all on AMD. The test runs in windowed mode so only 1 GPU is used. I can confirm on my system the second GPU was still in ULPS. Fans were off and no lights.
VR doesn’t use CrossFire like
VR doesn't use CrossFire like you are used to it – it enumerates each GPU individually. The game engine is accessing each GPU indepdent of one another.
the test is flawed:
the test is flawed: https://i.imgur.com/r8A1N45.png
a Q9550 with a GTX970 is VR ready … in what parallel universe?!
yea the fish smell is really
yea the fish smell is really strong now.
3dmark demo will even let you know if you are VR ready…while holding the side of tuna.
A Q9550 is still a fast CPU.
A Q9550 is still a fast CPU. CPUs haven’t scaled that much compared to GPUs, at least since 2007 or so. If the test is well multithreaded, then even one of these old quad cores may do quite well.
that doesn’t excuse that fact
that doesn’t excuse that fact people might actually buy a VIVE based on this test; and when they start to play games .. oh boy
I have seen a lot of test
I have seen a lot of test indicating that most games, even without the added VR overhead for the GPU, are already GPU bound. The Q9550 was a very high-end CPU. It was released in 2008 at $530. I wouldn’t be surprised if it can keep up fine in a GPU bound situation.
well the oculus required at
well the oculus required at least a mid range i5 with the dev kit
VR is rendering almost the
VR is rendering almost the same scene twice, so I would expect it to be very GPU bound in most cases. It should be using the same data for both renders; the view is just shifted slightly. Most of the set-up work for the CPU can be shared if it is implemented properly. For a given scene, the load on the CPU should be almost the same as rendering a single view, while the GPU load is doubled.
Also, a Q9550 is 2.83 GHz with 12 MB of L2 cache (2×6 MB). A Core i5 only has 6 MB of L3 cache. It would be interesting to run some benchmarks to compare, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a few applications run faster on the older chip due to the larger amount of on-die cache. At a minimum, it would help make up for the much slower memory system. The Q9550 was just about the most powerful C2D made. There were a few with slightly higher clock, up to 3.2 GHz and 1600 MT fsb rather than 1333. This is the problem with only giving currently selling hardware as a minimum. That isn’t a good replacement for actually testing the hardware.
that old proc is also tied
that old proc is also tied down to DDR2 memory as well.
It might have been very fast for its day, but its coughing dust.
“Radeon parts tend to offer
“Radeon parts tend to offer better performance per dollar when it comes to benchmarks and many games.” What?! in Europe one R9 nano cost around 600€. Good Job AMD guys!!!!:p
Nano is a niche product with
Nano is a niche product with a high cost. Obviously you picked this one thing out of the crowd because you are trolling. No way any human could be that dumb.
If you are talking about AMD
If you are talking about AMD being a good value, it is, I hope obviously, about the 390 cards. These currently give you a powerful GPU with 8 GB of memory for a reasonable price. If I was buying now, in that price range, I would go with a 390 of some kind over a 970. The 3.5 GB of memory on a 970 could be a big limitation going forward.
Ran the test a few times on
Ran the test a few times on my system. 4670 and GTX 980 with a reference cooler that gets temperature limited. The score topped out at 7.5.
Would be nice if Valve will
Would be nice if Valve will share some global statistics about this test
Unlocked (5 cores) and
Unlocked (5 cores) and overclocked Athlon II 640 passes the test, but HD 7850 2GB fails. Nothing strange here.
“Nano is a niche product with
“Nano is a niche product with a high cost. Obviously you picked this one thing out of the crowd because you are trolling. No way any human could be that dumb.”
“human what?!” Ok, I guess you win 🙁
It said my rig is bad
It said my rig is bad ass!!!
Got the best score possible on my G1 980ti.
So excited!
🙂
My rig is ready….11 with a
My rig is ready….11 with a 980Ti and a 4790K…
Well. My slightly OC’d GTX980
Well. My slightly OC’d GTX980 scores a 9.1/9.2 everytime so I’d say that’s rather good
Well. My slightly OC’d GTX980
Well. My slightly OC’d GTX980 scores a 9.1/9.2 everytime so I’d say that’s rather good
AMD 8350 at 4.2GHz, 2ea SSD
AMD 8350 at 4.2GHz, 2ea SSD for system and gaming drives. Zoltac GTX 970 4GB. Scord 6.3 Should be OK for us poor folk!
My 6 year old i7 980 xe @ 4.3
My 6 year old i7 980 xe @ 4.3 ghz and amp extreme 980 ti factory clocked got a score of 12.
Ive seen a guy get a score of 13 on hybrid 980ti oc.
This is very gpu bound.
You got a 12, someone else
You got a 12, someone else got a 13.
That’s incredibly impressive when the scale tops out at 11.
GP100 amd GP104 should be
GP100 amd GP104 should be great for VR with their HBM2 and possible GDDR5X on lower end models.
I got 4.9 score with FX 8350
I got 4.9 score with FX 8350 and GTX 570@OC .
This test is really funny because most of the time i am just under 90 fps by 12-3. There is a heavy gpu test and i am getting 5x fps, still.