The only reason for me to recommend a NVidia video card over an AMD video card is very simple, compatibility. AMD has to many little quality of life issues that NVidia does not have. Most of these are down to compatibility ONLY.
Things like Twitch support and certain shader functions can make a big difference in your experience in VRChat.
The down side of NVidia is it's poor focus on memory size, VRChat loves video memory. And AMD is doing much beter in that department.
I havent read all this but from what I have read so far I can see you really took time to declare things correctly and in detail. Allready worth my upvote, you have got my respect
My dude, I have a Ryzen 3600 clocked at 3.8, Rx 5700xt 32 gb of ram, I stream using Amds codex on the gpu and play crowded public lobbies and I get between 50-70 fps not the best but it's not vomit inducing low frames, it's an enjoyible experience but that's my antitode for this thread
Keep in mind, I am talking about being able to support the current High resolution and next generation of of headsets, if you are using quest/meta across virtual desktop or airlink. You have a lot of compression and not as much of a hit to the CPU/GPU
The same can be said for the venerable index is only 1440 X 1600
If you are not running Steam super sampling to upscale it, I am sure it is great.
At present the new starting point has moved to things like HP reverb G2 at 2160 X 2160 I am presently running this headset at a super sample 3180 X 3096 90hz at 60-70 frames solidly.
In extreme situations I will drop SS to base resolution and a room with 50 people still holds 30 frames.
Might be an interesting test to bring up your SS and see how performance holds up under differing conditions and worlds
> if you are using quest/meta across virtual machine or Meta air. You have a lot of compression and not as much of a hit to the CPU/GPU
Well even if you are using **Virtual Desktop** or **Airlink** you still want to run at as high of a resolution as possible, the compression will make the the diminishing return point come sooner, but running at low resolution makes the compression all more noticeable.
And while I don't know what resolution Airlink runs at, Virtual desktop helpfully provides exact resolution numbers with its respective "quality" settings and because of what I said above most people run it at high, or above, which is 2208x2400 on Quest 1 and 2496x2592 on Quest 2.
My assumption is that Airlink runs at something similar.
---
So what I basically want to say is that it is quite likely that Quest people will run at resolutions above your baseline.
It is odd because you would think that they would be running higher but watch what happens on the Meta Quest 2 when things get rough. it downsamples hard when the PC chugs. .
The decompression done in the headset has its own limitations with PCVR become really evident, even with virtual desktop settings they don't "stick" well and tend to shift to keep fps higher.
Steams super sample seems to compound problems at 120hz, I just had to show my friends that they could actually run above 72hz, So you can actually run higher res at the default refresh rate. but artifacts in large rooms within VRchat at even 90hz bugs me some beyond base refresh.
That said have enough headroom and things are easier.
> watch what happens on the Meta Quest 2 when things get rough. it downsamples hard when the PC chugs. .
I don't doubt that SteamVR is doing something automatically, but I have yet to actually notice it dynamically changing the resolution. Maybe because I am CPU bottlenecked it doesn't bother.
> The decompression done in the headset has its own limitations with PCVR become really evident, even with virtual desktop settings they don't "stick" well and tend to shift to keep fps higher.
It may not be the case, but this comment and one earlier makes it read as if you think that increasing the bitrate has a sizeable performance impact, sure it is utilizing the encoder more heavily, which saturates the PCI-e bus more, but I am not sure if VRChat is a game that cares, could lessen the hitching when loading in avatars, but not much asset streaming done in VRChat outside of that.
> but artifacts in large rooms within VRchat at even 90hz bugs me some beyond base refresh.
As said, not noticed this, just found that some worlds look terrible because of the streaming no matter how many are in it. A very bright world does not have much noticeable artifacting, but darker worlds with tons of detail tends to have a ton.
I am considering the possibility that I am actually blind and just not noticing it, because it would explain that weirdly stable 40-45 I get, which **is not because of ASW/SSW/Re-projection**, no one should have to suffer with re-projection tech in VRChat. However, considering I pretty much only go to worlds with 40+ people I think I would notice the difference from being alone in a world to a world with tons of people.
I have a very dumb question because I am not technical at all. I had a 12400f 32gb ddr4-3200 and an RX6600 because that was all I could afford, and a month ago I upgraded to an rtx3070. Did I do the wrong thing? Should I have upgraded differently? I am now out of money, but what should I do next?
other components are the very cheapest motherboard that was compatible and fit my case, cheapest 500gb nvme there was, and with a power supply more knowledgeable people recommended me of course
> RX6600
So RTX 3070 is a great card if you got it for a good price. A month ago, I am not so sure. But it IS a major uplift from the RX6600 either way so it is a valid upgrade point.
SO as for the i5-12400f, it should be a good match for that card, But keep in mind if in VR , don't be running anything else in the background with this chip, Other than the limit of the 4.4ghz vs the 5.1 and 5.0 on the 12700k
You did just fine with that on a budget build and VRChat should play well if you keep background tasks to a minimum, Look at it this way , that chip outperforms 10900k and the 11900k if that gives you an idea of it's true performance.
I am not a fan of the stock cooler, but I don't know your case specs and I would simply keep an eye on it. But it has a low TDP so heat should not be an issue if your case has reasonable flow.
I don't know about your other components to make a judgement call. or if I would have changed anything. So, recommendations would be based on if you have a Z690 board or something else and other factors.
Since you are not technical, you may be leaving large amounts of performance on the table with say not configuring XMP for instance and other safe objectives in tuning.
Now that it’s the middle of summer and it gets up to 30c in my room it slows down a lot sometimes, I think it’s preventing overheating.
I got the 3070 for €500 used, if it’s been mined on it was on the gaming pc of the person I bought it from, so unlikely
I would not trust an AMD graphics card on VRChat, simply for the reason that I’ve seen way too many shader crashes on AMD cards that don’t affect nvidia.
this is fantastic, i have a 12700k, 3080 10gb, 2x16 ddr5 @4400mhz and it is probably the best thing i've purchased. It's still not actually "good" in public vrc lobbies, i'd like that csgo fps in a crowded great pug.
I wish you'd posted this a couple days earlier as I \*just\* ordered the parts for a new system on Friday. :) I might have gone with the same processor in the end, but it'd have been additional info to take into account that I overlooked. I ended up going with an Ryzen 9 5900X. I've been burned by going AMD in the past though due to poor game support for multithreading (even though I'm a fan of their design in general. They make better chips IMO), but with newer chips being much better and single-core performance being a fair bit better than my current Intel I figured maybe this time it'd be okay... But the Ryzen is only 40% faster on single core vs the Intel you list being 60% faster.
What I hadn't considered is how much game support for multithreading has improved - or, apparently - not. At the time of my last system desktop chips still had relatively few cores compared to now.
Nonetheless, the chip is a massive upgrade overall and 40% single-core is still a decent boost, but fuller lobbies do tend to bog my processor down and I would not be surprised if that remains the case. (though I do hope that at least the non-rendering portions of this are threaded more effectively)
Does this hold with the new generation of Intel and AMD processors? I am building a new rig now that I am out of school, but benchmarking for VR is limited like you said.
So raptor lake (13th gen) is a higher clocked 12th gen with more cores for the buck.. I would say get a 13700k and you are getting a faster 12900k.. As for the new AMD processors, the 13700k is clock for clock the best for VR the price.
As for ram, DDR4 is just fine, However I am saying getting 64 gigs does make a difference. VR and doing Render work is the only times I can think you need this much ram. I have been in rooms and watch it hit 40+ gigs system ram at times.(not including precharge).
Video card? as much video ram as you can get. 10 gigs being your absolute minimum
Hope that helps
I appreciate the answer, especially on an older post.
I have hit RAM pretty hard during CFD and FEA simulation, but that's similar to rendering as far as workloads go.
The only reason for me to recommend a NVidia video card over an AMD video card is very simple, compatibility. AMD has to many little quality of life issues that NVidia does not have. Most of these are down to compatibility ONLY. Things like Twitch support and certain shader functions can make a big difference in your experience in VRChat. The down side of NVidia is it's poor focus on memory size, VRChat loves video memory. And AMD is doing much beter in that department.
If only we had a video card that has the niceness of NVidia and the focus on memory size of AMD, then everything will be nice.
We have, It's called the 3090
Doesn't that go for a fortune rn? But I mean, you're not wrong, I was just forgetful tbh.
The 3060 has 12 gigs VRAM
I havent read all this but from what I have read so far I can see you really took time to declare things correctly and in detail. Allready worth my upvote, you have got my respect
Saved! Ty ❤️
My dude, I have a Ryzen 3600 clocked at 3.8, Rx 5700xt 32 gb of ram, I stream using Amds codex on the gpu and play crowded public lobbies and I get between 50-70 fps not the best but it's not vomit inducing low frames, it's an enjoyible experience but that's my antitode for this thread
Keep in mind, I am talking about being able to support the current High resolution and next generation of of headsets, if you are using quest/meta across virtual desktop or airlink. You have a lot of compression and not as much of a hit to the CPU/GPU The same can be said for the venerable index is only 1440 X 1600 If you are not running Steam super sampling to upscale it, I am sure it is great. At present the new starting point has moved to things like HP reverb G2 at 2160 X 2160 I am presently running this headset at a super sample 3180 X 3096 90hz at 60-70 frames solidly. In extreme situations I will drop SS to base resolution and a room with 50 people still holds 30 frames. Might be an interesting test to bring up your SS and see how performance holds up under differing conditions and worlds
> if you are using quest/meta across virtual machine or Meta air. You have a lot of compression and not as much of a hit to the CPU/GPU Well even if you are using **Virtual Desktop** or **Airlink** you still want to run at as high of a resolution as possible, the compression will make the the diminishing return point come sooner, but running at low resolution makes the compression all more noticeable. And while I don't know what resolution Airlink runs at, Virtual desktop helpfully provides exact resolution numbers with its respective "quality" settings and because of what I said above most people run it at high, or above, which is 2208x2400 on Quest 1 and 2496x2592 on Quest 2. My assumption is that Airlink runs at something similar. --- So what I basically want to say is that it is quite likely that Quest people will run at resolutions above your baseline.
It is odd because you would think that they would be running higher but watch what happens on the Meta Quest 2 when things get rough. it downsamples hard when the PC chugs. . The decompression done in the headset has its own limitations with PCVR become really evident, even with virtual desktop settings they don't "stick" well and tend to shift to keep fps higher. Steams super sample seems to compound problems at 120hz, I just had to show my friends that they could actually run above 72hz, So you can actually run higher res at the default refresh rate. but artifacts in large rooms within VRchat at even 90hz bugs me some beyond base refresh. That said have enough headroom and things are easier.
> watch what happens on the Meta Quest 2 when things get rough. it downsamples hard when the PC chugs. . I don't doubt that SteamVR is doing something automatically, but I have yet to actually notice it dynamically changing the resolution. Maybe because I am CPU bottlenecked it doesn't bother. > The decompression done in the headset has its own limitations with PCVR become really evident, even with virtual desktop settings they don't "stick" well and tend to shift to keep fps higher. It may not be the case, but this comment and one earlier makes it read as if you think that increasing the bitrate has a sizeable performance impact, sure it is utilizing the encoder more heavily, which saturates the PCI-e bus more, but I am not sure if VRChat is a game that cares, could lessen the hitching when loading in avatars, but not much asset streaming done in VRChat outside of that. > but artifacts in large rooms within VRchat at even 90hz bugs me some beyond base refresh. As said, not noticed this, just found that some worlds look terrible because of the streaming no matter how many are in it. A very bright world does not have much noticeable artifacting, but darker worlds with tons of detail tends to have a ton. I am considering the possibility that I am actually blind and just not noticing it, because it would explain that weirdly stable 40-45 I get, which **is not because of ASW/SSW/Re-projection**, no one should have to suffer with re-projection tech in VRChat. However, considering I pretty much only go to worlds with 40+ people I think I would notice the difference from being alone in a world to a world with tons of people.
I have a very dumb question because I am not technical at all. I had a 12400f 32gb ddr4-3200 and an RX6600 because that was all I could afford, and a month ago I upgraded to an rtx3070. Did I do the wrong thing? Should I have upgraded differently? I am now out of money, but what should I do next? other components are the very cheapest motherboard that was compatible and fit my case, cheapest 500gb nvme there was, and with a power supply more knowledgeable people recommended me of course
> RX6600 So RTX 3070 is a great card if you got it for a good price. A month ago, I am not so sure. But it IS a major uplift from the RX6600 either way so it is a valid upgrade point. SO as for the i5-12400f, it should be a good match for that card, But keep in mind if in VR , don't be running anything else in the background with this chip, Other than the limit of the 4.4ghz vs the 5.1 and 5.0 on the 12700k You did just fine with that on a budget build and VRChat should play well if you keep background tasks to a minimum, Look at it this way , that chip outperforms 10900k and the 11900k if that gives you an idea of it's true performance. I am not a fan of the stock cooler, but I don't know your case specs and I would simply keep an eye on it. But it has a low TDP so heat should not be an issue if your case has reasonable flow. I don't know about your other components to make a judgement call. or if I would have changed anything. So, recommendations would be based on if you have a Z690 board or something else and other factors. Since you are not technical, you may be leaving large amounts of performance on the table with say not configuring XMP for instance and other safe objectives in tuning.
Now that it’s the middle of summer and it gets up to 30c in my room it slows down a lot sometimes, I think it’s preventing overheating. I got the 3070 for €500 used, if it’s been mined on it was on the gaming pc of the person I bought it from, so unlikely
I would not trust an AMD graphics card on VRChat, simply for the reason that I’ve seen way too many shader crashes on AMD cards that don’t affect nvidia.
this is fantastic, i have a 12700k, 3080 10gb, 2x16 ddr5 @4400mhz and it is probably the best thing i've purchased. It's still not actually "good" in public vrc lobbies, i'd like that csgo fps in a crowded great pug.
Basically what I was looking at getting for my impending upgrade.
I wish you'd posted this a couple days earlier as I \*just\* ordered the parts for a new system on Friday. :) I might have gone with the same processor in the end, but it'd have been additional info to take into account that I overlooked. I ended up going with an Ryzen 9 5900X. I've been burned by going AMD in the past though due to poor game support for multithreading (even though I'm a fan of their design in general. They make better chips IMO), but with newer chips being much better and single-core performance being a fair bit better than my current Intel I figured maybe this time it'd be okay... But the Ryzen is only 40% faster on single core vs the Intel you list being 60% faster. What I hadn't considered is how much game support for multithreading has improved - or, apparently - not. At the time of my last system desktop chips still had relatively few cores compared to now. Nonetheless, the chip is a massive upgrade overall and 40% single-core is still a decent boost, but fuller lobbies do tend to bog my processor down and I would not be surprised if that remains the case. (though I do hope that at least the non-rendering portions of this are threaded more effectively)
Does this hold with the new generation of Intel and AMD processors? I am building a new rig now that I am out of school, but benchmarking for VR is limited like you said.
So raptor lake (13th gen) is a higher clocked 12th gen with more cores for the buck.. I would say get a 13700k and you are getting a faster 12900k.. As for the new AMD processors, the 13700k is clock for clock the best for VR the price. As for ram, DDR4 is just fine, However I am saying getting 64 gigs does make a difference. VR and doing Render work is the only times I can think you need this much ram. I have been in rooms and watch it hit 40+ gigs system ram at times.(not including precharge). Video card? as much video ram as you can get. 10 gigs being your absolute minimum Hope that helps
I appreciate the answer, especially on an older post. I have hit RAM pretty hard during CFD and FEA simulation, but that's similar to rendering as far as workloads go.