Overclock.net banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,021 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Going to take a ton of GPU horsepower to push dual 4K screens @ 90hz and above. Cant wait!

Quote:
During their Capsaicin event at GDC 2016, AMD unveiled the Sulon Q, a wireless VR/AR head mounted display (HMD) with an onboard gaming rig. The headset features an AMD FX-8800P processor coupled with Radeon R7 GPU and 8GB of memory. Well, it seems that Sulon Q won't be the only HMD powered by AMD.

Apparently, AMD is working on another yet to be announced VR headset which would offer 4K per eye display. Ars Technica UK's Mark Walton quoted Roy Taylor, AMD Corporate Vice President of Alliances, saying:

We are already working with a headset manufacturer, unannounced, with a 4K per eye headset. It exists. It's quite, quite beautiful, and we believe that the roadmap to go into higher resolutions will happen more quickly than is probably expected. Once you've seen a high resolution VR experience, you can see that it's really quite beautiful.

The Sulon Q headset features a 2560x1440p OLED screen meaning it will provide 720p per eye, so obviously it is not the headset Taylor has been talking about.

Still and all, it will be interesting to see what type of AMD GPU could push 4K resolution per eye, because we are not sure even the company's recently announced fastest Radeon yet, the Radeon Pro Duo, would be powerful enough to do what AMD is claiming right now.

We're keeping our eyes peeled for it, and will update you with the latest as it happens.
http://techfrag.com/2016/03/17/amd-working-on-another-vr-headset-with-4k-per-eye-display/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,036 Posts
That would need some serious hardware indeed.
 

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
46,938 Posts
I am not sure if its 4K per eye as in full 4K. Most places quote the current stuff as 1200p per eye which is not the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

I am not sure if its 4K per eye as in full 4K. Most places quote the current stuff as 1200p per eye which is not the case.
It is. It is just not 16:9 per eye so the horizontal resolution is obviously smaller.
 

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
46,938 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1LL View Post

It is. It is just not 16:9 per eye so the horizontal resolution is obviously smaller.
Then its not 4K then lol because 4K comes from the Horizontal resolution. It should be 2K per eye.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
518 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

Then its not 4K then lol because 4K comes from the Horizontal resolution. It should be 2K per eye.
I absolutely agree! The whole commonly used naming (convention?) for resolutions in general is really confusing. The only "safe" way imho is to use the exact resolution when talking about it, like 2x1080x1200p for Vive or Oculus.

I've seen people refer to 2560x1440p as 2k and I have no idea where that comes from...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,192 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1LL View Post

I absolutely agree! The whole commonly used naming (convention?) for resolutions in general is really confusing. The only "safe" way imho is to use the exact resolution when talking about it, like 2x1080x1200p for Vive or Oculus.

I've seen people refer to 2560x1440p as 2k and I have no idea where that comes from...
Ugh, I've seen it called 2.5K before. 1080p is occasionally 2K, which I guess is a decent way to put 4K in perspective. But then what kind of 4K are we talking? 4096x2160, "true" 4K? Or just 3840x2160? Hey, what if it's 16:10, that would be 3840x2400.

It's a bit of a mess.

2160x2400 per eye though. That would be pretty fantastic. 4320x4800 would also be awesome but 1) I don't expect it and 2) who actually needs that level of detail?! The problem would be the price of the panels and the GPU grunt to drive it. I'm not really willing to rely on multi-GPU setups unless we can get hardware level links (think QPI for multi-socket servers, but for GPUs instead) rather than the software based rendering methods crossfire and SLI use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,077 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Ugh, I've seen it called 2.5K before. 1080p is occasionally 2K, which I guess is a decent way to put 4K in perspective. But then what kind of 4K are we talking? 4096x2160, "true" 4K? Or just 3840x2160? Hey, what if it's 16:10, that would be 3840x2400.

It's a bit of a mess.

2160x2400 per eye though. That would be pretty fantastic. 4320x4800 would also be awesome but 1) I don't expect it and 2) who actually needs that level of detail?! The problem would be the price of the panels and the GPU grunt to drive it. I'm not really willing to rely on multi-GPU setups unless we can get hardware level links (think QPI for multi-socket servers, but for GPUs instead) rather than the software based rendering methods crossfire and SLI use.
VR like how it is now is early stages, tbh pixel count atm is like a monochrome monitor. Yes its cool now but its nothing compaired to whats to come. Offcourse we need more. So to answer the question who needs more its a simple answer, we all need it
smile.gif
8k per eye isnt even enough. The goal of VR is to create a virtual reality where there is no difference to see from the real reality.

VR needs more pixels, much more and it is good to see that behind the scenes AMD is pushing it. But yes for consumers now it's enough but there always needs to be moar
tongue.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
956 Posts
Explain, please, how is the VR not hurting eyes when it requires the user to focus on an image a few cm away from the eyeball? I understand that having individual images for each eye let one avoid crossing the eyes, but what about the muscles which operate the pupil? How is distance to object implemented(so that one needs to adjust pupil in order to focus on more or less distant things)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Quote:
Explain, please, how is the VR not hurting eyes when it requires the user to focus on an image a few cm away from the eyeball? I understand that having individual images for each eye let one avoid crossing the eyes, but what about the muscles which operate the pupil? How is distance to object implemented(so that one needs to adjust pupil in order to focus on more or less distant things)?
"focus on an image a few cm away ", that is not how it works, VR might confuse your balance, but your eyes are straind far less than when looking at a screen.
Try googeling how the VR lenses work, its quite facinating. I'll add it here, if I can find a good article.
 

·
Debian Dude
Joined
·
2,184 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post

I am not sure if its 4K per eye as in full 4K. Most places quote the current stuff as 1200p per eye which is not the case.
That naming convention only refers to the number of horizontal lines (ie vertical resolution) and the fact that it's progressive scan. Any number of vertical lines (ie horizontal resolution) is valid under that designation. "xxxxp" does not imply any particular resolution even though people often use it as a shorthand for commonly used display resolutions.

It would be like if people referred to both squares and rectangles as rectangles. It's technically correct, just not very specific. Same thing here.
 

·
PC Evangelist
Joined
·
46,938 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Particle View Post

That naming convention only refers to the number of horizontal lines (ie vertical resolution) and the fact that it's progressive scan. Any number of vertical lines (ie horizontal resolution) is valid under that designation. "xxxxp" does not imply any particular resolution even though people often use it as a shorthand for commonly used display resolutions.

It would be like if people referred to both squares and rectangles as rectangles. It's technically correct, just not very specific. Same thing here.
All i care is I want to know how much pixels my GPU has to output. Idiots out there thing there are 2 x 2560x1440p screen on CV1 and Vive @ 90Hz. Nothing can drive that right now.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top