Virtual Insanity: Here’s Oculus Rift’s PC Specs

We’ve still got a year or so to wait before we can get our hands on the consumer version of the Oculus Rift head-mounted display – tech which, as an amateur consumer marketer, I propose somebody ought to rename Matrix Face. But the crew, who have been quietly tinkering away in VR, have just released everything you ought to know about Oculus VR’s recommended PC specs:

NVIDIA GTX 970 / AMD 290 equivalent or greater
Intel i5-4590 equivalent or greater
Compatible HDMI 1.3 video output
2x USB 3.0 ports
Windows 7 SP1 or newer

As Oculus said last month, the version folks at home will get to play with is improved over last year’s Crescent Bay prototype. Oculus say it’ll have “an improved tracking system that supports both seated and standing experiences, as well as a highly refined industrial design, and updated ergonomics for a more natural fit.”


  1. Not_Id says:

    So to buy a pc with those specs and the Oculus headset, it’ll cost what? £1,400?

    • Clavus says:

      Around $750 for the computer (according to the build-it-yourself crowd) and around $400 for the Rift I expect. However it’s better to wait before upgrading, the computer components will probably be significantly cheaper by the time the Rift actually launches.

      • Not_Id says:

        Yes but a lot of those requirements state “equivalent or greater”.

        • RadioactiveGazz says:

          Pretty much the computer I have, which I got through PC Specialist with a 660 a couple of years back and then upgraded to an Nvidia 970 last christmas. Just went back on there now and built a computer with these specs and it came to £781. That’s with a 650W power supply, too, which I recommend for a 970 for reasons. By the time the occulus comes, that’ll be cheaper, and even then, no need to be an early adopter. Leave it 6 months or so.

          In the context of today, making a device with these requirements seems like madness, but a year and a half from now, getting a PC that equals this will be a bit more reasonable. Long-term, it’s best. Gives developers more to work with, they can make the experiences that can make VR worth considering at all, rather than compromised games that will just make VR fade out all over again.

      • Underwhelmed says:

        The “build it yourself” crowd have an endless capacity to underestimate the cost of parts, and inflate their own machines specs. Unless you priced those parts yourself, I would guess that the number will be a bit higher than that.

        The rift is essentially running two monitors, so it really isn’t a surprise that it will be pretty costly to have a game like say GTA5 running at high detail in 3D. There is a reason why most of the work in progress stuff for the rift is older games or games with simplistic graphics.

        • Lanessar says:

          Well, I just built a system with an I-5 4670K, GTX 970, 8GB HyperX Fury 1688 RAM, MSI Krait x97 motherboard and pretty much to those specs. It was $758.43 delivered – there was some other misc stuff too, like a CPU cooler, fans, power supply, so I’d say it was a pretty close estimate.

        • Nasarius says:

          This isn’t secret information. Go to and pick one of their builds with a GTX 970 or an R9 920. You’re looking at under $1000 to meet those specs, and that’s including a high quality power supply, a fancy case, etc.

    • PseudoKnight says:

      Cheaper by then.

    • FurryLippedSquid says:

      They’ve said that it will take roughly three times the horsepower (over a regular screen) to output 1080p70 on the Oculus.

      • FurryLippedSquid says:

        So if you want to play Asteroids, you should be fine.

  2. Clavus says:

    Steep requirements, but at least both developers and consumers now have a recommended spec to aim for. One notable thing is that the spec does not mention OSX. Probably because Apple’s highest-end iMac models don’t come close to the recommended GPU spec.

    • Lachlan1 says:

      Also because macs are for losers

    • PseudoKnight says:

      This is exactly the reason. Also, the lack of Linux is probably because there’s no target Linux distro. Valve will mention Steam OS, though.

      The high end target is perfect for this market. I think the GPU requirement isn’t too steep either, considering you need to render 2160×1200 at 90hz minimum. The CPU is oddly specific, though. You’d think slightly older i5 processors would be fine too. And this doesn’t mean you can’t just turn down some settings to make it run smooth on older systems. It’s a target for a normal experience.

    • Licaon_Kter says:

      They droppedsuspended Mac/Linux for the moment, second to last paragraph: link to :-|

      • Premium User Badge

        keithzg says:

        As a mainly Linux user (I mean, I have over 150 Linux games on Steam, and every game I’ve played in the last month other than GTA V has been on Linux) this is enough to push me over to disinterest. Especially considering that the way cross-platform development works, it’s a bit of extra overhead at the time, but if you port after your codebase has devolved into a platform a specific state it’s always far, far harder. It’s why some devs go “oh, it’s trivial to support Linux” and others go “wtf omfg teh impossible”. So if they’re “suspending” non-Windows development I expect it will be a loooong time, if ever, that they get back to OpenGL Unix-like platforms (ie. Linux and OSX). Which makes me really sad as someone who’s had a great deal of fun with a DK1 even.

        Alright, Valve, your move.

  3. Spacewalk says:

    Is full time carer included in those specs, I’m going to need someone to keep my body going when I jack in to Better Than Life.

    • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

      Man, those things are rarer than Venus’ arms, or Brooke Shields’ buttocks!

    • DrScuttles says:

      Series 4000 mechanoid servants are obsolete so should be pretty cheap to pick up these days.

    • Blad the impaler says:

      BTLs are deadly, chummer.

  4. Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

    Man, those things are rarer than Venus’ arms, or Brooke Shields’ buttocks!

  5. Premium User Badge

    yhancik says:

    I didn’t remember it was Kathryn ‘The Hurt Locker ‘ Bigelow who directed Strange Days!

  6. soopytwist says:

    970?! Really? Rules me out then. Unless my two 780’s count.

    • fish99 says:

      equivalent or greater

    • inf says:

      In raw GPU power, a 780 is the equivalent of a 970, let alone two 780s. The only differences are some power-efficient maxwell features, and 500MB more of partially low speed VRAM. In other words; you should be good.

    • Continuity says:

      SLI is generally a very bad idea for VR, adds latency and stutter, or in other words vomit.

      • soopytwist says:

        Do we know what Steam VR’s recommended specs are yet?

      • inf says:

        Latency for a lot of games in SLI is improving per driver and SLI profile release at Nvidia (speaking from first hand experience with a DK2). Some games are actually flawless (Elite for example), others, not quite. But you are correct, SLI in it’s current state is not something you want in the equation if you are looking for a perfect experience without any hickups. Nvidia and AMD are actively working on making it work though.

      • Premium User Badge

        edna says:

        It’s a funny thing that SLI and OR aren’t a good mix. You’d think that having to calculate two separate images would be *ideal* for SLI, which runs two GPUs in parallel.

        • Asurmen says:

          That is coming from what I remember of various AMD announcements.

      • KenTWOu says:

        SLI is generally a very bad idea for VR, adds latency and stutter

        Valve thinks otherwise. According to their GDC speech about VR rendering multi GPU rendering is very important for VR. They encouraged everybody to implement multi GPU solutions, because they nearly doubled frame rate using early AMD implementation. And it was very useful even for development purposes.

  7. Ethaor says:

    I think it should be emphasized that these are “Recommended” specs to enjoy the Rift at its fullest, not “Minimum requirements”.

    • inf says:

      Believe me, you do not want bad frametimes with VR, safe to say you should aim for recommended and nothing less.

  8. Beanbee says:

    Oh wow, that totally makes sense. 90s Kathy was fucked up.

  9. MadArcher says:

    My PC/body is ready !

  10. The_invalid says:

    I’m increasingly of the mind that the Rift is a bit of a vanity project by a bunch of developers that got overly attached to the idea of VR in the 90s without ever considering the practical hindrances of such an interface. Seeing those recommended system specs was kind of the last nail in the coffin for me getting a device which is clearly aimed at the kind of rich tech enthusiasts who would dish out a couple of grand for a working hoverboard.

    Still no mention of any practical solutions to eyestrain, motion sickness or disorientation inherent in head-mounted VR.

    • MacPoedel says:

      If you know anything about PC hardware, you should know a PC with the recommended specifications can be built for less than a grand. An Intel Core i5 of the 4th gen is practically as fast as a 2nd gen, and by the time the Rift launches, the R9 290 will be 2 years old. 8GB RAM is standard on most PCs for years now. Definitely not very high end hardware. You can have a 290 for 250-300 euro, or whatever your currency is.

      I consider those specifications somewhat medium end, kind of mirroring my own pc. And I spend around €200 a year, but I use a lot of second hand parts and sell what I don’t use. VR might require a bit more expensive hardware, but its bleeding edge after all.

      I think it will require a couple more generations before real solutions to eye strain etc will arise.

      • The_invalid says:

        I’m pretty well-versed in building computers, but mainly from the standpoint that the job I work doesn’t pay well enough that I can afford to spend anything near a grand on new components. I currently have a modest but workable rig (Core i3 2120 with a GTX650 Ti Boost) that I managed to assemble for just over £400.
        At the leanest possible set of upgrades I would need to run the Rift, plus buying the RIft itself, comes to about £650-700 in total. That’s just not the kind of money I have lying about for something I don’t even know if I’ll enjoy.

      • alms says:

        “I consider those specifications somewhat medium end”

        No, no that’s wrong, you’re supposed to say: anything below Tesla is entry level anyway. Maybe add “it’s kind of like my old computer kek”

    • MattMk1 says:

      I think it’s a fun technical exercise, but – as of right now – I can’t imagine it having any positive impact on my gaming experiences.

      My interest in experimental indie games is minimal, and I’ve never been a snob when it came to visuals – I enjoy long, heavily story-driven games that I can immerse myself in and spend dozens of hours on, in comfort, often with a beer at hand.

      The idea of trying to do so while wearing a device that will result in greatly increased eye strain, neck strain, discomfort from straps pushing into skin and quite possibly motion sickness is really unappealing. (especially since I spend plenty of my work time peering at computer screens and squinting at stuff through microscopes)

      If VR can be perfected to be minimally intrusive and able to deliver something close to a seamless gaming experience I’ll be eager to try it, but until then, I have virtually no interest in it and sincerely hope it does NOT become any kind of driving force in game development.

    • Asurmen says:

      Well practical solutions have been given and are being included, which amounts to improving any technical aspect which induces those things. Better res, lower latency, lower persistence etc. However, some people will always be uncomfortable with these sorts of devices. Nothing can be done to fix their eyes and brains :)

      • The_invalid says:

        Eyestrain isn’t caused by resolution. The Rift (and any stereoscopic 3D device for that matter), does not produce a true 3D image. As such, unlike in the real world, your eyes have no point-of-focus other than the screens. Fixing your eyes one one POF for a long period of time causes eyestrain. There is literally no solution for this because it is inherent to how the device functions, and it is something everybody experiences.

        I’m sure there will be lots of people who will be quite happy to sit through hours of using the Rift in spite of this, but I find the eyestrain caused by 3D devices to be nigh-on unbearable after about 40-45 minutes. And, frankly, apologies for sounding bitter, but I’m not really too stoked about the fact that THE FUTURE OF GAMING is a device I will probably hate.

        • Premium User Badge

          BlueTemplar says:

          How is this different from a regular screen except that the recommended “take a break and go look through a window at the horizon every hour or so” is slightly harder to do because you have to remove the helmet?

        • Asurmen says:

          You mentioned several different issues. Res etc fixes some of them, and covered the rest with the eyes/brain comment. Some people will get eyestrain. Some won’t. They cannot fix people’s eyes and brains.

        • maxloop says:

          You’re forgetting about one of the most important components in a VR device, the optics. It’s not just a screen that you squint into, there is a lens in front of each display that does much more than simply magnify the image across your vision. Those lenses focus the photons at optical infinity, as if you were staring off into an open field. (Creating the sense of scale) When staring off into the distance, which you’re effectively doing at optical infinity, our eyes are completely parallel and at rest. Focusing on close objects requires the use of muscles in our eyes to rotate them inward, they converge and hold that position to maintain clear focus, hence why staring at a computer monitor or a smartphone for many hours will leave your eyes screaming. However this neat optical property of VR devices doesn’t allow for that to happen, your eyes will be at rest when wearing the device as if you’re looking “through” the display into a massive empty area.

  11. schlusenbach says:

    It will be interesting to see how VR will affect the gaming market. Seated experiences like Elite Dangerous, Eurotruck Sim, etc. will obviously be perfect for this, but what will happen with other genres? It will be very hard (or impossible?) to create a shooter that will work with and without VR, so what will happen to all the FarcryAssCreeds and the like? Will big publishers invest their millions for VR-only-games or will those goggles be a playground for small indie devs for a long time to come?

    • Shuck says:

      “will those goggles be a playground for small indie devs for a long time to come?”
      Yes. Outside the aforementioned games where VR has obvious appeal, it’s going to be tiny indie games and – at best – some half-assed support for larger games that aren’t designed for it. (With Valve likely being an exception – they can afford to spend resources to add real VR support to their games – to build those two versions, for and not-for VR – even if very few people will actually use it.) Actual AAA games designed around VR will happen when it comes standard with consoles. Before that, it’ll be the (really) cheaply developed games that can afford to get by with few sales (and promotional experiences, which we’re seeing a lot of already). I suspect there will be an initial burst of content as users seek to buy the few games that are out for their rigs, but then it will die down until (if) the headsets are more widely adopted – even indie developers can ill afford to devote themselves to such a small user base. If there’s no standard for doing position tracking or input devices, the user base will be even more fragmented.

      • Premium User Badge

        BlueTemplar says:

        Then if you can take any smartphone to use as a screen for a VR helmet like Samsung is trying to do, this will significantly lower the entry cost (since the target consumers will probably already have one).
        Current pixel density of high-end phones seems almost good enough (though you probably need more than that to achieve retina screens for average sight acuity people due to the lenses/how close the screen is to the eyes).
        Combine this with streaming the picture from a separate, powerful computer, and you can even run demanding 3D games on it.
        (Or maybe head movement tracking and latency won’t be good enough on something not dedicated to VR like that, we’ll see.)

  12. Pizzacheeks McFroogleburgher says:

    Meh. Im over the Occolus, now much more excited by the Vive..

    • Xzi says:

      Vive will have greater requirements if anything.

    • Nibblet says:

      Agreed. In adittion to currently being the superior of the two it is also set to launch this year.

      • Clavus says:

        From a technical point of view, the Rift seems more advanced than the Vive HMD. The advantage the Vive has right now is the SteamVR tracking system, but we don’t know what Oculus has cooked up since they seem to be holding something under the wraps.

        • Nibblet says:

          It is more than just the head tracking.
          The vive has a better picture overall, higher refresh rate aswell as better resolution. The vive is also alot more comfortable to wear.

          • Dave L. says:

            Vive is better because it has the more robust tracking solution, but also because SteamVR already supports Mac and Linux, which Oculus has dropped. Everything else you’re saying is either flat out wrong (Vive and the CV1 have the exact same resolution and refresh rate), or pure speculation (Vive is more comfortable to wear? Have you worn both?)

          • Nibblet says:

            Pure speculation? You can google the speccs of both yourself.
            The vive runs 1080×1200@90 where as occulus Dk2 is 960×1080@75.
            And yes, ive tried them both.

          • Asurmen says:

            What exactly does the DK2 have to do with the comparison between the Vive and the consumer Oculus? None, that’s what.

          • Apocalypse says:

            Why someone even compares the Vive with the Oculus Rift in its first consumer version? By the time the CV might get released (if it gets released at all) the Vive 2 could be already on its way (if the Vive 1 gets released and sells well, Valve and Facebook have a tradition of canceling projects)

            “HTC officially unveiled its device, Vive, during its Mobile World Congress keynote on March 1, 2015. Subsequent updates on Steam have indicated a potential release date of November 2015. Valve and HTC have since announced that the headset will be free for select developers.”

            “Since the earliest days of the Oculus Kickstarter, the Rift has been shaped by gamers, backers, developers, and enthusiasts around the world. Today, we’re incredibly excited to announce that the Oculus Rift will be shipping to consumers in Q1 2016, with pre-orders later this year.”

            And Q1 2016 can mean anything from October 2015 to June 2016, the joys of fiscal quarters and cooperation using them to blurry release dates.

  13. Ejia says:

    I don’t think VR headsets are for me. I need to wear glasses for astigmatism, and I find it very hard to focus on nearby objects.

    • Entitled says:

      Then it sounds like VR would probably be BETTER for your eyes, than forcing yourself to focus on a monitor, at least as soon as their resolution will be good enough to simulate a virtual monitor.

    • emertonom says:

      The optics are supposed to help with that. You should definitely try before you buy, though.

    • Timbrelaine says:

      I’m not sure that would be a problem. You don’t stare at the screen like a monitor, you look directly at the virtual landscape/objects (given cues about their distance by the stereoscopy). I think everyone would go mad trying to focus on something straddling their nose.

  14. John O says:

    According to Wikipedia, (ark of knowledge, bringer of the light, Iäh), “In 1975, an Altair kit sold for only around US $400, but required customers to solder components into circuit boards; peripherals required to interact with the system in alphanumeric form instead of blinking lights would add another $2,000, and the resultant system was only of use to hobbyists.”

    I see the OR as “consumer ready”, not “consumer friendly”, in the beginning, few people will buy a full VR setup unless their favorite game is fully supported, which it probably won’t. Game companies will hardly invest huge numbers in making their games VR friendly unless the Kits have a significant market share. Which means it’s a chicken and egg problem.

    As for “the winner”, I think that’s the wrong way to look at it. These are all first generation products, and who’s to say that the Oculus won’t steal ideas from the Vive in the long run or the other way around? There were a few 3D accelerator cards on the market before the 3dfx Voodoo came out.

    • Timbrelaine says:

      Game makers already invest lots of time in graphical features that only a small portion of their customers can actually turn on. Much like Star Citizen or Elite: Dangerous, many game studios might support VR not because lots of people will use it, but because their hardest-core fans (and video game reviewers) will go nuts for it.

      • John O says:

        I saw this Youtube video a week ago where they said that adding VR support was really easy, because they just had to make it a 3d SBS image with some distortion thrown in. Well yes, to an extend. But really it’s more complicated than that. Basic VR support is relatively easy, yeah. But there’s a lot of problems that crop up with it.

        Think about head tracking. They found with the second OR dev kit that partial or full head tracking is very good at reducing nausea. It’s also very good at having your POV move inside geometry that should be solid I figure. So there’s a problem. Something similar turns up with your hands if you use some kind of device to track where they are.

        There’s other stuff too. Does motion blur help with the nausea and make things seem more realistic, and if so, how much? Stuff like that. So while you can throw in basic support somewhat easily, having full VR support, to the point where you want to play in VR exclusively, isn’t a question of ticking a few boxes.

    • Pizzacheeks McFroogleburgher says:

      Not another of those ‘my sister made $400/day soldering components on to circuit boards’ bot posts? come on RPS – get this under control!

  15. Premium User Badge

    Don Reba says:

    Come, let’s make Serial Experiments reality: link to

    • Premium User Badge

      keithzg says:

      I really remember that show being great; no idea if it would hold up for me now a decade and some later.

      • Premium User Badge

        Don Reba says:

        I couldn’t say — it’s an odd one. The same people later came together again to make Texhnolyze, a counter to Ghost in the Shell’s optimistic view of the effect technology would have on humanity. This one is easier to recommend.

  16. geldonyetich says:

    I have not really had much reason to upgrade for years. VR hardware such as this might provide that reason, but only if the software support matches.

  17. Kefren says:

    I get totally lost on what things mean, even when I look up specs I find it hard to compare them. Teh way Intel and Nvidia name their products doesn’t help. For example, O.R. requires:
    “NVIDIA GTX 970equivalent or greater”
    I know my graphics card is older, but you can see the confusion – mine has the number 9800, which you would think would be more advanced that the “paltry” 970, but is probably actually much worse. Thanks Nvidia. I’ll just assume my graphics card would be no good (though I don’t know if you can just swap one for the other, or if all the motherboard complications come in).

    Ditto with the requirement for “Intel i5-4590 equivalent or greater”. I have a
    Intel® Core™i5 Processor i5-750 (2.66GHz) 8MB Cache
    The Wikipedia article doesn’t even seem to mention i5-4590, and I wouldn’t have any idea how to work out the performance difference from my CPU, or whether it can be upgraded. PCs are confusing at times like this.

    • Licaon_Kter says:

      ’cause a graphic card from Aug 2008 should be better than any card launched in Sep 2014, right? I see the confusion, it’s pretty clear, 6 years nothing happened, but I wonder why the new one is actually $20 cheaper ( on launch )? Also the name is the same right? 9800GTX vs GTX970?

      CPU? Sep 2009 vs May 2014, yep 5 years of nothing, and it’s $4 cheaper (on launch).

      Hands down your system is better, it was more expensive, 5 years ago I mean. What were the Occulus recommended specs then?

      • froz says:

        Why are you so offensive? Did the OP hurt your family or something like that?

        Or maybe you can’t comprehend the idea that someone may not be that into PC parts and finds the naming scheme very confusing? Even then, why the hate. I really don’t get it. Yeah, after so many years in the internet I still don’t get it.

        • Licaon_Kter says:

          Not by far, I just fail to comprehend why someone that otherwise made an account here and self-publishes books on the Internet off all things, so he can clearly use it, would lament in a post in the time it would take him to google “9800gtx vs gtx970” or “i5-750 vs i5-4590” and read the very first (non-ads) result that would yield “my video card is 10 times slower but my processor is just 1.5 times slower, I might need to upgrade before a put down the money for an Rift”.

          Ok, I’ve seen his blog so writing _is_ his thing, my bad… keep writing Karl!

          • Kefren says:

            In my defence I’d just like to say that I did try research first, using what seemed a logical approach – e.g. reading Wikipedia articles on Nvidia cards and Intel CPUs, tracking down specs for the relevant hardware, and trying to compare them. Since I rarely replace or upgrade my PC (and thanks to the console-caused slowdown in recent years, meaning I haven’t had any problems with games, it has been even longer since I last looked into it) I often find the numbering and terminology have changed loads since I last looked; and whatever system was used to rate hardware as “better” in the past such as Mhz speed, or RAM, or number of cores may have changed completely in the interim and become some other measure. The number of terms that are relevant spiral into yet more in fractal-like progression – just one article is filled with relevant-seeming terms that take you to other articles. My point is, this is not my specialist area, and the amount of time to understand it isn’t insubstantial.

            Having said that, your suggestion worked. I have tried Google searches for
            9800gt vs gtx970
            i5-750 vs i5-4590
            and you are right – they do give relevant results. That is a surprise to me, since there are so many different versions of Nvidia graphics cards and Intel CPUs that I never imagined I’d get relevant results from combining two in a search. I hadn’t realised that some of the hardware sites were geared up for it and parsed the search terms to give personalised results pages. You live and learn. It’s handy to know. But I just wanted to say that I didn’t post without doing any research, it just turns out there were better methods which gave good results, and I hadn’t thought to try them (or possibly after spending 10-15 minutes getting confused, decided I didn’t want to spend any more time on it at present). All the best, Karl

          • Kefren says:

            PS This being the Internet, and statements having less context than in face-to-face and being open to interpretation – I don’t mean my comment as an attack or criticism. I just thought it might be relevant to know why I posted originally and where my assumptions had led me.

    • emertonom says:

      This is an excellent point. I have two resources I use for these questions.

      For CPUs, I use the Passmark searchable CPU list. Passmark benchmark performance is a reasonable proxy for CPU power. There are a baffling variety of CPUs available, but you’ll find the vast majority of them on that list. An i5-750 gets a score of 3729, and an i5-4590 gets a score of 7251, so the 4590 is quite a lot more powerful.

      For GPUs, I go to the most recent monthly installment of Tom’s Hardware’s “Best Graphics Cards for the Money,” and go to the “Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart” near the end. That’ll tell you if two cards are roughly comparable, or which is better, and the spread between them on the chart gives you a vague sense of how much better one is than another. Their rule of thumb is “I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel, and you may not even notice any worthwhile difference in performance.” On this chart, the GTX 970 is a jump of 9 tiers above the 9800 GTX, so it’s vastly more powerful. Cards adequate for the Oculus would be a fairly short list: nVidia’s 690, 780, 780Ti, 970, 980, or any of the various Titans (Titan, Titan X, Titan Black, Titan Z), or AMD’s R9 290, R9 290X, HD 7990, or R9 295X2.

      • John O says:

        To make things look a bit less grim, in “Powering the Rift” they explain that the hardware cited should be good for the lifetime of the OR, meaning that while you need some expensive tech for it to work as advertised, that hardware won’t go obsolete soon after you bought it. Like my recently installed i5 4440, which is just a smidgen too weak. Oh well.

        • that_guy_strife says:

          I find recommended nowadays to mean effects like motion blur turned. Since I find a lot of those ugly and turn them off, I can actually play games for which my system doesn’t meet min req at a decent framerate. Obviously that’s just me. Also don’t know how it’ll apply to Oculus.

          But confusing nomenclature is far from a good point. I mean, if a 16 year old can google the name of a card and figure out in which tier it falls …

      • Kefren says:

        Really good tips there, I’ll bookmark both of those, thanks Emertonom. I’d tried reading various things and just got confused – you offered a sensible solution.

        As an aside, I play lots of old games and GOG games, but even with more recent ones I’ve yet to have any problems graphically (though I always turn off motion blur because I don’t like it, and don’t apply heavy AA, so probably reduce their hit a bit as a result).

    • Premium User Badge

      BlueTemplar says:

      I use this :
      (It’s probably not perfect, but gives you the most relevant information in a few seconds.)

  18. alkonaut says:

    Those have been the specs of a “standard” or “enthusiast” gaming PC for some time. Not over the top, but not exactly budget either. To play big titles from 2015-17 that’s what you want, even for non-VR games. So it can’t be surprising that the more demanding VR medium requires at least the same specs.

  19. james___uk says:

    Me right now
    link to

  20. Wedge says:

    Buried in the technical blog post is the relevant information they didn’t present, which is that the final product is going to be running at 2160×1200 (Or 1080×1200 per eye) at 90hz. So you need to be running 90FPS at 2160×1200, which I would say a 970 is not adequate for on a number of modern games at higher graphical settings. However I figure it probably can handle that at lower settings, which is why they’re using it as a baseline. Hopefully we finally get some legitimately improved hardware in the next couple years.

    • Timbrelaine says:

      The kicker is that given the jarring and vomit-inducing nature of dropped frames in VR, they probably mean 90fps minimum. The 970 is a great (and expensive) graphics card, but even at 1080p you would have to turn down the settings quite a bit to get it to 90fps minimum on many recent games.

  21. Cronstintein says:

    People will complain no matter what. If the requirements were low, that would mean the experience would have a low ceiling. If they’re high, they complain that it’ll cost money to upgrade. Expecting cutting edge hardware work work on a 5 year old machine is silly. Of course you’re going to need a good graphics card to run two parallel video streams! What surprises me is that they can’t get SLI to work good with it (one card working for each eye), as that seems like an ideal solution on the surface.

  22. aliasi says:

    To be honest, my personal killer app for the Rift is Second Life and similar virtual worlds. Open world games like Skyrim too. Most games, maybe not so much. Although the idea that I could compensate for glasses with it is interesting too.

  23. macek677 says:

    So badly they want to scan your brain wave function.
    Amazing. The arificial hype is helping them tho!

  24. Al Bobo says:

    Seems like I will be waiting for a year or two after OR’s release before I go and buy it. I hope that, by then, most of the upcoming problems will be ironed out and I get to see some awesome eyecandy without bankrupting myself. …or I might cave in and end up buying it at day one…

  25. Deathshadow says:

    I bought the Dev2 Kit, IT was amazing, but after a few minutes in demo mode I literally had a headache for two days. Its like looking through a fixed focus binoculars while moving at the same time… Try it with a pair you’ll get a sense of eystrain with the Oculas.

  26. manny says:

    Remember the Unlimited Detail tech is incoming, and although it looks like it will take a few years to get into games it will drastically reduce the processing power required.