1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:07,080
a VR Gaming GPU for $200 it sounds too good to be true

2
00:00:04,960 --> 00:00:12,240
doesn't it I mean that's really cheap for a performance metric that has been

3
00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:17,080
held in this nigh impossible space for so long this car being able to stand up

4
00:00:14,679 --> 00:00:21,720
to this feet would be wonderful and could be a great Boon for the market

5
00:00:19,359 --> 00:00:26,930
adoption as a whole of VR so the question is can it perform in VR and if

6
00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:28,960
so how

7
00:00:28,960 --> 00:00:31,960
well

8
00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:41,760
the vitess mouse from Phoenix features a lightweight design and a naago 3310

9
00:00:40,160 --> 00:00:45,960
Optical sensor check it out to get a chance to win one at the link in the

10
00:00:43,680 --> 00:00:50,920
video description before we get into how the rx48 itself feels let's talk a bit

11
00:00:48,600 --> 00:00:55,800
about why VR benchmarking is so difficult unlike traditional 3D games VR

12
00:00:53,320 --> 00:01:00,800
games have to live within a specific set of parameters to avoid causing serious

13
00:00:58,280 --> 00:01:06,159
issues such as motion sickness for the user to accomplish this VR applications

14
00:01:03,840 --> 00:01:12,200
always have vertical refresh sync or vsync on and the current headsets are

15
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:15,320
capped at 90 Hertz meaning that results of higher frame rates shown by

16
00:01:13,799 --> 00:01:22,000
traditional benchmarking tools like fraps aren't always necessarily

17
00:01:18,920 --> 00:01:24,479
representative of an increased user

18
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:29,960
experience as you may or may not know most in-game settings for VR experiences

19
00:01:27,079 --> 00:01:35,880
are variable to accommodate for the necessary 90 HZ frame rate and avoid

20
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:38,360
issues like motion sickness this is why

21
00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:41,880
we can't provide traditional Benchmark results like 72 frames per second on

22
00:01:40,880 --> 00:01:47,560
ultra settings part of your run may be at

23
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:50,520
Ultra but certain settings may also drop

24
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:55,640
to high or even medium at some points in order to maintain your frame rate this

25
00:01:53,200 --> 00:01:59,880
is a good thing I'm not complaining but it does have a side effect of more

26
00:01:57,560 --> 00:02:03,880
complicated benchmarking procedures the there are some ideas about what we can

27
00:02:01,719 --> 00:02:09,840
use to test VR applications like motion to Photon latency frame times Mist

28
00:02:06,640 --> 00:02:12,160
frames CPU and GPU time used in each

29
00:02:09,840 --> 00:02:16,720
frame and specific components like response latency of specific

30
00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:21,360
head-mounted displays but current programs don't have the proper

31
00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:25,920
capabilities needed to measure these stats well Luke I know how you can bench

32
00:02:23,920 --> 00:02:30,280
VR score-based benchmarks why yes Keen viewer

33
00:02:28,239 --> 00:02:35,239
score-based benchmarks for VR do seem like the cat's freaking pajamas

34
00:02:32,920 --> 00:02:41,400
and they are coming future Mark's VR Mark which is based on directx11 and

35
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:44,319
measures display latency and persistence

36
00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:50,000
via external hardware is apparently coming soon whatever soon means and

37
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:56,280
basemark VR score which is being made in cooperation with krych supports both

38
00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:59,159
vx12 and dx11 and features multiple test

39
00:02:56,280 --> 00:03:03,599
types including interactive VR static VR and VR spatial audio it's sort of

40
00:03:02,040 --> 00:03:08,480
available but still needs to be validated by a large sample set from a

41
00:03:06,239 --> 00:03:13,280
number of reviewers and the community the inherent problem with synthetic

42
00:03:10,120 --> 00:03:16,120
benchmarks is they are not realworld

43
00:03:13,280 --> 00:03:21,080
performance metrics we need to see how relatable these results are to the

44
00:03:18,879 --> 00:03:24,879
actual experience of using various setups and make sure the scale actually

45
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:28,720
works properly however some of the massive advantages to score based

46
00:03:26,599 --> 00:03:33,920
benchmarks like the ones listed above are that since they're automated they

47
00:03:31,200 --> 00:03:38,799
are very easily repeatable they may become widely used and cited thus

48
00:03:36,319 --> 00:03:43,120
becoming a great resource overall collectively for prospective VR headset

49
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:48,200
buyers so if you're concerned about system compatibility you can actually

50
00:03:45,360 --> 00:03:53,239
see how your system May perform before buying a headset the only additional

51
00:03:50,599 --> 00:03:58,079
problem I see here is when new harder to- Run games come out hopefully gaming

52
00:03:55,560 --> 00:04:03,920
companies will be good about review copies and let reviewers see what

53
00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:06,280
Hardware people will need for various

54
00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:12,360
experience levels before the release of the game with all of that said how did

55
00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:15,319
the rx480 Faire actually quite well

56
00:04:12,360 --> 00:04:19,720
especially for a $200 card now I can't check myself how the settings change and

57
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:25,960
stuff throughout the games but watching Jon play raw data it was fine he didn't

58
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:30,639
notice any big problems and everything was okay now we have seen certain things

59
00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:35,280
from sites like PC perspective where they put cameras inside and you can see

60
00:04:32,479 --> 00:04:39,800
the frame timings and stuff isn't as good on cards that aren't as powerful so

61
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:44,880
we will see how it fares once VR benchmarks come out but if you want to

62
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:47,000
just be able to game in VR V rx480 can

63
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:51,520
get you there man and for 200 bucks that's pretty sweet they passed this

64
00:04:49,360 --> 00:04:55,560
test now when AMD was launching the rx480 they had a little meeting with a

65
00:04:54,080 --> 00:04:59,400
bunch of the reviewers talking about how benchmarking VR wasn't really a thing

66
00:04:57,560 --> 00:05:03,520
yet and I hope to have a meeting with the NVIDIA relatively soon to talk to

67
00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:09,199
them about the situation soon so hopefully soon enough I'll be able to

68
00:05:05,479 --> 00:05:11,680
give Real Performance metric-based VR

69
00:05:09,199 --> 00:05:17,800
benchmarking result information but right now it's just a she did pretty

70
00:05:14,440 --> 00:05:18,840
good it's good enough style review so

71
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:23,520
hopefully that's good enough for you guys hopefully you like this video you could press the like button if you did

72
00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:27,880
or dislike the video if you didn't get subscribe check out the uh Amazon store

73
00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:31,600
if you're interested in checking out an rx480 also check out Link in the

74
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:35,639
description to buy a shirt that's cool and talk on the Forum about what you

75
00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:39,000
think about VR benchmarking check out this video if you want to see the actual

76
00:05:36,960 --> 00:05:42,919
review of the rx480 and I'll see you guys next time