cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Rift Compatibility Tool

KillerQ97
Explorer
Hey all,

I suppose this is a handy, 'quick-check' tool... However, it raises a few questions. For example, If some of the specs (CPU or GPU,specifically) don't pass on your computer, does that mean it WON'T run, or that it's just not optimal?

I have a beast of a gaming laptop (ASUS ROG G750 Series G750JZ-XS72 - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834231644) that was pretty much top of the line a year ago when I bought it for the DK2 - now, I understand that the GPU is specifically not compatible by OCULUS - is that true?

Also, the compatibility tool says that the Corei7 in the above laptop doesn't meet the minimum reqirements when the Oculus says i5 or better.... that makes me wonder...

I appreciate your input...

Thanks,

Matt!
16 REPLIES 16

Arnoud_H
Explorer
When I look at the specs of the laptop you are linking to I see both a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU. Those are in general a lot slower than their desktop brethren.

When I do a quick google on the performance differences I find that the recommended nVidia GPU (GTX970) is 94% faster than your GTX 880M...

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nv ... 577vsm8540

KillerQ97
Explorer
Thanks!

Besides VR, I now feel that this laptop was a total waste of 3K....

laminblake
Explorer
Don't bother with that compatibility tool. Run the 3DMark firestrike demo from steam. If you score over 9200 your good to go

joan
Protege
"laminblake" wrote:
Don't bother with that compatibility tool. Run the 3DMark firestrike demo from steam. If you score over 9200 your good to go


Many high end laptops with Optimus are not supported for technical reasons, whatever 3DMark score they may have.

Myrskalle
Protege
Palmer confirmed on Reddit that they will not block people with weaker hardware from using the Rift.

KillerQ97
Explorer
"Myrskalle" wrote:
Palmer confirmed on Reddit that they will not block people with weaker hardware from using the Rift.



That's definitely a plus... That gives people a chance to experience it, judge their system's performance and the decide if and when they choose to upgrade...

Kudos!

Also, do you suspect that programs such as watching a movie, etc will be less GPU intensive than playing the newest game on the rift, for example....? I would assume so....

cybereality
Grand Champion
The Compatibility Tool is not perfect, but it is fairly accurate in most cases. The test is based on a very large range of different common hardware (both whitelisted and blacklisted) though it's possible you could have something uncommon that's not detected. I would take the results seriously unless you really know you have good hardware and there is a mistake.

Even if you have slower hardware, you won't necessarily be blocked but the experience can be poor and uncomfortable.

@Mattborkin: Laptops mobile GPUs are not supported at all, so that's probably why you've failed. Even the best mobile chips are significantly slower than desktop chips.

@laminblake: What you are saying is incorrect, and is part of the problem of why people are confused. Getting 9000 in 3DMark DOES NOT mean your PC is ready for Rift. First, mobile chips don't work (for example, with Optimus), so getting 9000 on a laptop means nothing since laptops don't work. Then there is SLI, which is also not supported. If you get a high score with 2 (or 3) cheaper cards, it won't work cause SLI doesn't work. The lump score also can hide deficiencies in your machine, for example if you have a monster GPU but cheap CPU (or vice versa) where you get a decent total score but certain components aren't good enough.

KillerQ97
Explorer
Thanks, @cybereality....

I now have a $2,500 budget to build a new rig - so that's my new project.

taterdan
Honored Guest
"cybereality" wrote:
The lump score also can hide deficiencies in your machine, for example if you have a monster GPU but cheap CPU (or vice versa) where you get a decent total score but certain components aren't good enough.


Do you think that VR-focused benchmarking tools (like Futuremark's upcoming VRMark) would give a more reasonable comparison, or is it really down to individual applications and to "stick to the spec" when discussing potentially lesser hardware? Not asking about VRMark's usefulness specifically, but the general sentiment about benchmarks for VR, since unlike most 2D applications performance is much more tightly linked to usability and comfort.

Maybe VR benchmarking should only be used to compare min spec and higher builds? So it'd be more about future-proofing and reaching max settings, and not for answering "can I run this." (I completely get why the only *real* answer to "can I run this" is to go with the official recommendations, hence the official Compatibility Tool -- the platform holder can't and shouldn't make any promises about hardware below min spec, it's up to developers if they want to advertise support for lower-end machines. Which...would probably not be helpful in the long run anyway.)


Unrelated: kudos to the team for identifying the USB controller/driver compatibility issues and building that into the tool, I bet that caused a lot of headaches internally. High fives to the QA and devs who got in front of that particular bus. And my sympathies to the Support people who'll take the hit when some people inevitably didn't run the tool and can't get it to work. It's not a topic I saw discussed publicly before the tool was available, any idea if that problem was seen with the DK2? Or did the custom hardware (as opposed to some presumably off-the-shelf components in the DK2) and higher throughput of Crescent Bay/CV1 introduce new, more stringent USB 3.0 requirements?