Half-Life Fallout: Valve Launches SteamVR Performance Test Tool - Half-Life Fallout

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Valve Launches SteamVR Performance Test Tool



Intergalactic Wizard

Posts: 3,661

#1 Posted 22 February 2016 - 11:42 PM

Valve has launched a new tool to see if your computer will be ready for new VR games and content. So before you drop $800 to purchase the HTC Vive, you may want to make sure you'll get the best VR experience.

The test will let you know if your hardware is VR ready, capable, or not ready. Be warned, the requirements for the test requires an Intel® i5-4590 / AMD FX 8350 or greater as well as GeForce GTX 970 or Radeon R9 290 or greater.

So HLFallout members, where do you fall on the performance test?
Posted Image



Intergalactic Wizard

Posts: 3,661

#2 Posted 23 February 2016 - 12:14 AM

Posted Image


I looked to have averaged around 110FPS. How'd everyone else do?
Posted Image



G-Man Personal Aid

Posts: 1,560

Icon

#3 Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:24 AM

I tried a few times. With my GPU (R9 290) at stock (left), and after overclock of about 10% (right)

Posted Image Posted Image


(And lol, my wife's hand-me-down computer didn't fare so well. It was pretty good when I built it!.. In 2006...)

Need to OC my CPU too, paid that bit extra for a K model and haven't utilized it yet!

Now all I need is a good excuse to spend $800 +tax +S&H for a Vive... Or a Rift. Not sure yet. :wack:
Posted Image
Steam ID || NNID: Inimitable
Former HLF Staff, 6/6/2019 - 9/5/20XX



G-Man Personal Aid

Posts: 1,560

Icon

#4 Posted 23 February 2016 - 01:29 AM

Double posting because mod abuse. I think the way the demo dynamically adjusts the quality settings to maintain 90fps is bigger news than the benchmark tool. Pretty cool! I want more Source 2...
Posted Image
Steam ID || NNID: Inimitable
Former HLF Staff, 6/6/2019 - 9/5/20XX



High Priest of Onionism

Posts: 21,050

Icon

#5 Posted 23 February 2016 - 08:18 AM

Yeah, I passed, average 7, with no frame drops. whoopsie diddly doo, not that I intend on jumping on this VR bandwagon anyway.

I wonder why this benchmark was so low-res, since apparently the vive's resolution is 2160 x 1200.
Posted Image
A Vvaardenfell sunset



Gordon Freeman's Personal Aid

Posts: 3,457

#6 Posted 23 February 2016 - 11:01 AM

View PostInimitable, on 23 February 2016 - 06:54 AM, said:

Now all I need is a good excuse to spend $800 +tax +S&H for a Vive... Or a Rift. Not sure yet. :wack:

Get the Vive. It can do everything the Rift does.
And it comes with rooms scale VR so it's more flexible.
Also it has a front-facing camera which can be used to look around when necessary without taking off the headset (convenient).



Colonel Benefactor

Posts: 3,500

Icon

#7 Posted 23 February 2016 - 03:30 PM

Oh well, didn't expect it to be any better than this.

Posted Image



G-Man Personal Aid

Posts: 1,560

Icon

#8 Posted 23 February 2016 - 04:46 PM

View PostHumbug, on 23 February 2016 - 04:01 AM, said:

Get the Vive. It can do everything the Rift does.
And it comes with rooms scale VR so it's more flexible.
Also it has a front-facing camera which cam be used to look around when necessary without taking off the headset (convenient).

These are big pros! On the other hand, the Rift has better software support (so far), any many claim it's the more comfortable of the two headsets. There will be lots of changes to the screen and software that drives it up to launch for both headsets, so one could emerge a clear winner in the fidelity area. The Rift's built-in audio is supposed to be pretty robust (and the Vive has none). I also think the Touch ergonomics are more appealing than the Vive's giant wands. And I think room-scale is damn cool, but honestly I probably won't use it much.

Mostly I'm waiting for both to launch so reviews are more widespread and we have all the info. I'm not spending near a grand on a guess!
Posted Image
Steam ID || NNID: Inimitable
Former HLF Staff, 6/6/2019 - 9/5/20XX



Gordon Freeman's Personal Aid

Posts: 3,457

#9 Posted 23 February 2016 - 05:45 PM

R9 290

Posted Image



Gordon Freeman's Personal Aid

Posts: 3,457

#10 Posted 23 February 2016 - 05:47 PM

Not sure you guys noticed but one interesting thing about this sequence is that there are no graphics settings. The source 2 engine is dynamically varying the graphical fidelity in order to target 90fps. i.e. if the previous frame took more than ~11ms to render then it starts dropping the graphics in order to maintain 90fps. The result is less framerate variations but more graphical variations (if your system cannot handle it). This is the opposite of what we usually have (wild framerate variations and fixed graphical target).
https://www.reddit.c...rformance_tool/

Also in order to have a closer look at the assets I forced it out of stereoscopic mode and into my native resolution fullscreen (1080p). The textures seem to be very high res and there is a lot of geometry detail in the scene. Still when you take it out of stereoscopy it runs at almost 300fps because it's a small room in a good engine and has been designed to run at high framerate.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



Colonel Benefactor

Posts: 3,500

Icon

#11 Posted 24 February 2016 - 03:49 PM

Holy that looks pretty fucking nice, Source 4 life. It just looks great without all the over-the-top features like in other state of the art game engines. Like Brumi once said, graphical design > graphics.

View PostHumbug, on 23 February 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

...in a good engine and has been designed to run at high framerate.


Yeah, CS:GO runs the best at 250fps or higher, when you get lower than 150, you can feel it in your mouse movement. Source runs best at very high fps, also totally no screen tearing at high frames without v-sync, where other engines have terrible screen tearing above 60fps.
60fps limit is just too low for high paced gaming, good thing they let the VR run at 90fps (or maybe higher).



Gordon Freeman's Personal Aid

Posts: 3,457

#12 Posted 24 February 2016 - 05:20 PM

View Postshampo0o, on 24 February 2016 - 09:19 PM, said:

Holy that looks pretty fucking nice, Source 4 life. It just looks great without all the over-the-top features like in other state of the art game engines. Like Brumi once said, graphical design > graphics.

It looks fucking nice because it's Source 2, it's a new engine.
http://www.dota2.com/reborn/part3

In the screenshots I posted I have intentionally got unusually close-up to stuff in order to scrutinize the graphics. Source 1 stuff doesn't look that detailed when you get into details, at least in my experience, although it can still have overall decent (by 2016 standards) looking maps.

With regard to Source 2; apart from limited snippets like this to truly see what it can do we will have to wait for some new Valve game built on it from the ground up.



G-Man Personal Aid

Posts: 1,963

Icon

#13 Posted 08 March 2016 - 05:53 PM

Posted Image



DAT Q6600 Son. However it does look like the PCI-E 2.0 is probably holding my R290 back...maybe the DDR2 is effecting it also. That or something is funnay budday. :blink:

Anyways still amazed how a 2008 CPU is still kicking it...and they said "Don't get the Quad Core, Dual Cores will last a long time."
They used to call me FatFunkey

Steam Profile Xbox Live ID FatFunkeyPiRaTe



G-Man Personal Aid

Posts: 1,560

Icon

#14 Posted 09 March 2016 - 03:04 AM

The q6600 seems to be holding up surprisingly well (for a relic). But it's still going to be a bottleneck. It's about half as fast as today's average i5, like a 4460

The DDR2 will bottleneck you anywhere between 5-25% depending on the game and engine.

On the bright side, the R9 290's a fine GPU. Compared to PCI-E 3.0 x8 or 3.0 x16, 2.0 x16 will bottleneck you like 1%, and 2.0 x8 maybe 2%. So long as you're not using 1.1 you're a-ok.
Posted Image
Steam ID || NNID: Inimitable
Former HLF Staff, 6/6/2019 - 9/5/20XX



Colonel Benefactor

Posts: 3,500

Icon

#15 Posted 09 March 2016 - 05:03 PM

Humbug has the same R290 and gets an average of 7.1, you get an average of 4.6.
His CPU power is practically 10x stronger, but still they say you have to upgrade your GPU. ¿?

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users