- Steam vr desktop view standby streaming drivers#
- Steam vr desktop view standby streaming Pc#
- Steam vr desktop view standby streaming free#
I think we're getting nearer to the real issue here - these results are extremely poor for a RTX 3080 Ti :
Steam vr desktop view standby streaming drivers#
AirLink versus tethered Link made little difference.ĮDIT: Virtual Desktop ran 9% to 16% faster than Rift, and 14% to 21% faster than AirLink in SteamVR! I will try to do some testing in a game that uses native Oculus drivers to see how Rift, Link, and Virtual Desktop compare in that environment. TLDR: On my PC, Quest 2 performance overhead ranges from 2% to 7% compared to my Rift CV1, with less performance loss at higher resolution. It was a great headset in its time, but I could never go back to using it now. Whether comparing them at low or high resolution, the Quest 2 image looks so much cleaner and sharper, while the Rift looks so blurry that I have a hard time reading text in menus, even at 344% super-sampling. On a side note, I haven't used my Rift in quite a while, and OH MY GOD does it look blurry and low-res compared to my Quest 2.
Steam vr desktop view standby streaming free#
OpenVR Benchmark is free utility on Steam. I would be interested in seeing other people's results with different hardware, if anyone cares to do some comparative testing. Be that as it may, I started using Quest and Quest 2 for PCVR when I was using a GTX 1080, and although I don't have benchmarks for that setup, I never noticed any performance hit that felt like 30% loss.
Steam vr desktop view standby streaming Pc#
Obviously results will vary depending on many factors-I'm using a current-generation GPU that may be more efficient at encoding than older cards, and I have more RAM in my system than the PC used for tests posted in the Index thread. Virtual Desktop ran 15.5% faster than Rift, and 21.4% faster than AirLink! So overall, a 2 to 5% performance hit when running the Quest 2 at maxed settings.Įdit: Virtual Desktop at 100% (7.48 million pixels per eye): Airlink runs at 95.1% of Rift's framerate, Tethered Link is at 98.1%, and increasing the bitrate dropped it to 95.2%.
Looking at these results, the Rift still runs a little faster, but with even less advantage. The Quest 2 is again pushing slightly more pixels, but there was less difference than the low res tests. Quest 2 at 100% (7.40 million pixels per eye) Rift at 344% (7.40 million pixels per eye): Virtual Desktop ran 8.6% faster than Rift, and 14.9% faster than AirLink! That doesn't seem too bad.Įdit: Virtual Desktop at 30% (2.24 million pixels per eye): So overall, a 6 to 7% performance hit when running the Quest 2 at default Rift settings. Airlink runs at 94.5% of Rift's framerate, Tethered Link is at 93.0%, and increasing the bitrate dropped it to 92.6%. So looking at these results, the Rift does run a little faster, but not anything near 30%. The Quest 2 is pushing slightly more pixels (3% more), but it was the closest I could get with the way SteamVR adjusts resolution. Tethered Link, increased bitrate (350 Mbps): Quest 2 at 30% (2.21 million pixels per eye) Rift at 100% (2.15 million pixels per eye): In VD I used the Ultra setting, which gave me similar resolution to Link at 1.7x, and a bitrate of 150 Mbps (the highest setting VD). I don't know why VD performs better in SteamVR, but I've added the results below. I tested the Quest with AirLink (dynamic bitrate up to 200 Mbps), tethered Link at default bitrate, and also with bitrate raised to 350 Mbps (the point at which I don't notice any compression artifacts).ĮDIT: I ran the tests with Virtual Desktop, and those results exceeded both Link and Rift. I did my best to match pixel count between the two headsets, and ran the test at low res (Rift 100% in SteamVR), and high res (Quest 100% in SteamVR, using 1.7x resolution in the Oculus app). I tested both headsets using OpenVR Benchmark through SteamVR. This didn't seem comparable to my own experience, so I thought I would do my own benchmarks to see how my Quest 2 compares to my Rift CV1. Some posted benchmarks in the Index thread implied that the Index ran 30% faster than the Quest 2 when using similar settings. I've seen people claiming lately that using a Quest 2 for PCVR comes with a massive performance cost compared to PC-only headsets.
0 kommentar(er)
