So continuing from Rune's comments on page 59 of Index thread about Steam Vs Oculus Vs Revive performance which I'll quote the main post here.
RuneSR2 said:
Seems no-one is testing this rather important
subject - so I sat down today and downloaded Nefertari from both the
Oculus Store and Steam. I use Revive 1.9.2. Note this is kinda a worst
case scenario, Nefertari is 12GB for rooms that might be the equivalent
of 0.1% of Alyx, lol:
https://youtu.be/cMNC8ZtwCig
These
are my results - standing the exact same place, Epic settings (OTT
performance and pixel density hud used for CV1, FpsVR used for Index):
CV1 ss 2.0 (Oculus Store version) = 22.5 fps
Index res 100% (Oculus Store version) = 45 fps
Index res 200% (Oculus Store version) = 30 fps
Index res 200% (Steam version) = 45 fps
It's
really amazing how much better the Index looks and performs using
native Steam drivers. Getting 100% better performance using native Steam
drivers - and using res 200 % - compared to Rift CV1 ss 2.0 was not
exactly what I expected. Also note that Revive res 200% actually worked
better than CV1 ss 2.0 too.
This kinda puts the awesome performance I'm getting in Alyx into some perspective - but I'd need to test that more thoroughly.
I decided to do some crude benchmarking to see how it is for WMR these days using my Odyssey+ on my GTX 1080 with an I7 7700 CPU and 16 gigs of Ram. Using Revive Version 2.1.1 and SteamVR Beta branch as well as WMR for Steam beta branch.
to max on 4 in game. In game SS to 1.0. Steam VR at 200% supersampling. I
left in game AA to 0.2.
First test I got
90 fps entire time on Steam version. Frame times were around 10-11ms
with GPU load going from 85-92%. It looks and plays amazing tbh.
90 fps entire time on Steam version. Frame times were around 10-11ms
with GPU load going from 85-92%. It looks and plays amazing tbh.
Oculus
version - I can't seem to disable Motion Vector, stuck at 45 FPS
despite it being off everywhere. GPU load of only 50% and a cpu of 40%
and a GPU frametime of 18-19ms. pretty terrible performance. Rip. I wanted Motion Vector off so I could see exactly how many fps I was producing. Just seeing the 45 could mean I'm producing 46 or 89. Big difference. The game is playable like this but with those frame times, prolly going to get nauseous after awhile.
version - I can't seem to disable Motion Vector, stuck at 45 FPS
despite it being off everywhere. GPU load of only 50% and a cpu of 40%
and a GPU frametime of 18-19ms. pretty terrible performance. Rip. I wanted Motion Vector off so I could see exactly how many fps I was producing. Just seeing the 45 could mean I'm producing 46 or 89. Big difference. The game is playable like this but with those frame times, prolly going to get nauseous after awhile.
got me wondering if something changed with Revive or if it was just limited to this game or what. So I loaded up Asgard's
Wrath. I went
in with Motion Vector/Motion smoothing all disabled and I actually got
really good performance at 200% supersampling or 2040 x 2552. Holding a steady 80 FPS on the default settings and Motion Vector is off as it should be. GPU frametimes of around 12ms.
I decided to start tinkering and see what I can do to get the most out of this game as I've wanted to play it since it released but I didn't really want to experience it on my CV1 with SDE and the last time I tried with O+ performance wasn't acceptable. Amazingly, I'm pretty impressed.
I switched my O+ to 60hz mode, left motion vector off. Dropped supersampling to 190% or 1988 x 2488 and went to Epic settings in game and this game looks pretty amazing. I'm dipping down to 40 fps in the tavern though with these settings so I further dropped shadows and effects and view distance to High and now I'm holding pretty much a solid 60 fps everywhere which is actually pretty comfortable. No nausea yet and no unpleasantness that is noticeable. I'm actually super excited now to play this game. My GPU frame times are around 12 and my GPU usage is going up to 96-97% lol. Getting every drop of performance out of that 1080. I'm out of time for today to test how it is with Motion Vectoring but I'll follow up with those results.
Anyways this is just a start and I thought I'd share. At some point I will test some other games, especially want to see what I can do with Stormlands over Revive and I'll bump this. I also want to finish getting a better comparison of performance loss of using Revive vs Steam version since my Aircar test was bugged. I own a few games on both so I will install them and test. Feel free to share any of your own performance results on any headset.
ArchAngel -
Steam Version - 200% SS, 90 FPS. Easily held 90 fps the entire time. GPU loading hovered around 75% mostly with going as low as 50 and as high as 90 in intense firefights. Frame times between 7ms and 10 ms depending on how much the GPU was working. I forgot how great this game looks as well. Or rather maybe I never realized it because I only played it on my CV1 and Index. It looks really really good in O+ and crisp. Some minor aliasing and screen flickering in parts but nothing major. Once you get out of the hangar and out into the open, it really looks fantastic. I don't mind wave shooters and really like this game. Has a solid story.
Oculus Version Through Revive - More of the same pattern. Slightly worse performance. Slightly higher Frame time. I was getting 11-13ms and GPU load sitting around 80% and 90 fps the entire time. Fully playable, feels great and already looks fantastic at 200%. Still a lot of headroom here. Fantastic optimization but I"m not surprised since it's a PSVR port.
Robinson The Journey
So I ran into an issue with this one. SteamVR can't super sample it. Fortunately it has a built in pixel density adjustment. I'm not familiar with how to calculate pixel density. In SteamVR with the linear adjustment the resolution is 1440x1804 at 100% and it's 2040 x 2552 at 200%. Do I just multiply the 100% numbers? IE for 1.4 pixel density (1.4)1440 x (1.4)1804 = 2016 x 2525? which would be the closest if that's the case. Perhaps @kojack can enlighten.
In the meantime... this game looks blurry as hell at 1.4 because of the TAA.....but it looks NUTS at 2.0 pixel density in the Odyssey+ which I am assuming would be 2880 x 3608.
Performance on SteamVR - 50-60 FPS at 2.0 PD. Frame times of 18ms lol. GPU about to explode hitting 98% most of the time...but man does it look sick. It's like playing Crysis in VR lol.
Performance on oculus through revive - surprisingly it's no different. Hovering around 60 fps and similar frame times at 2.0 pixel density.
Steam version - I played around in the lobby and then did the First mission. All settings to epic including AA. Same SS 200%, got 90 fps the whole time. Frame times of mostly 9ms sometimes 10. GPU loading around 85-90% so may drop under 90 in the later/busier stages where things get crazy. There's some bad aliasing in the lobby and I was getting some really bad frame time spikes of 20ms. I think it's maybe network lag from people joining the lobby. Surprisingly though, very little aliasing in the actual mission. This game is an oldie but still looks good. They've added some things since I played it. Cool new intro and an Archer and such.
I did notice that this game doesn't allow you to change supersampling at all from in game with SteamVR but the internal PD works. In all of these tests I always go in at 200% and test that first for consistency and then change the SS to see if it affects visuals at all. Had to reload this game 4 times (2 on steam 2 on rift) to tinker and it's quite a slow loading game lol.
Oculus Version - Same trend. Mostly around 10ms frame time so a little bit worse than the Steam Version. Otherwise, same performance.
pyroth309 said:
Seeking Dawn -Steam VR Version - I went through the beginning tutorial part in both versions, went through the bridge and then got out into the first stage. Killed a few mobs and repeated it on Oculus. Went in with 200% SS/90hz all settings on max with Anti Aliasing on. In Game pixel density to 1.0 and I was getting 45-60 fps, GPU loading of 96-98% CPU around 50 and frame times of 18-21ms. Unfortunately, there's more pixel crawling going on in this game than Elite dangerous. I tried turning anti-aliasing on and off no difference. I went up to 250% SS and again no real change in the flicker. I went down to 150% and flickering was reduced...but the blur was unbearable. Not sure what would need to be done to make this game enjoyable graphically.Oculus version through Revive - Pretty much the same performance wise. I did see a flat 40fps which I didn't on the steam version so probably slightly worse. Frame times were again a few ms higher with a peak of 24ms. Same problems with flickering.Honestly it's a shame that a game of this graphical quality has these issues. This could be one of the best VR games around if the devs were better at optimizing.
This game is problematic, or at leadt has been. My OTT global ss value is always multiplied with the in-game value. The in-game value only goes to 1.2 or 1.4 I think. I'm using global ss 2.0 and in-game 0.8 to get 1.6. It may be very important to constantly use the OTT pixel density hud to be sure which ss you're getting... Dunno if this goes for the Steam version too...
