GPU card

[Slimwaffle]

So I am looking at upgrading my gpu specifically for building games. I want to get something that I can eventually use to make a VR game. What nvidia cards would you guys recommend for this? I was thinking a 1070 or 1080.

[Josh]

If you're on a budget I would get this:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814126189

If not I would get this:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125908

Depending on how fast Turbo is you might be able to rely on even this for VR:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814126258

[Slimwaffle]

Thanks mate. I think I might go with the 1080. You pretty much confirmed what I was thinking.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

You would do well with either the GTX 1070 or 1080. You really have to look into the differences between the two to see if the price difference is worth it. I am running a 1070 at the moment and there isn't a thing I can't run on it. All games run at their highest (ultra) settings, I create complex 3D models for work on it, etc. So, for me, I didn't have a need to dish out the extra for the 1080. But that's me.

[Slimwaffle]

I ended up getting the 1080 because it was only an extra 100 from the 1070. I got to look at my game for the first time today not on low settings and was actually pleasantly surprised.

[Josh]

You will see a big difference between the 1060 1070 and 1080 if you are doing VR

[Monkey Frog Studio]

Who brought up the 1060?

[Josh]

Just now, Monkey Frog Studio said:

Who brought up the 1060?

typo

[Monkey Frog Studio]

According to just about everything I've read, the 1070 does just fine with VR (not the 1060, as it's a different chip, if I remember). The 1070 is a little slower and uses slower VRAM, but is not all that different than the 1080. One article even called the 1070 the "VR Sweet spot". 

https://newatlas.com/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1070-review-vr/44509/

On one of the REDDIT channels, they are saying VR on the 1070 is "smooth as butter" in all the games they played on it in VR. 

Now, that's not to say that the 1080 doesn't have more power. It does. However, a 1070 is just fine (and, in many cases, more than fine) for VR. 

[Josh]

We have one demo we are working with right now that runs just fine on the 1080 but a 1070 mobile card struggles with it.

Turbo is faster, and maybe the demo could be optimized more, but that is what we are experiencing right now.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

Yeah, I obviously can't speak to that as I don't have access to Turbo, etc. But with the games and VR applications made for and released to the public, the 1070 works just fine. In most cases, according to reviews and end-user experiences, the difference between the two cards is either negligible or not at all noticeable. So, if I were purchasing a video card (and not doing what you do) and was interested in VR, I would not hesitate to get the 1070. 
 

Quote

Turbo is faster

Than what?

If Turbo is experiencing a noticeable slow down on the 1070 and not the 1080 in VR and these other games and applications are not (or not as noticeably) then there might be something else going on, I would think. Yes, the 1070 is slower overall than the 1080, but they use the same chip set (basically). 

[Josh]

59 minutes ago, Monkey Frog Studio said:

Yeah, I obviously can't speak to that as I don't have access to Turbo, etc. But with the games and VR applications made for and released to the public, the 1070 works just fine. In most cases, according to reviews and end-user experiences, the difference between the two cards is either negligible or not at all noticeable. So, if I were purchasing a video card (and not doing what you do) and was interested in VR, I would not hesitate to get the 1070. 
 

Than what?

If Turbo is experiencing a noticeable slow down on the 1070 and not the 1080 in VR and these other games and applications are not (or not as noticeably) then there might be something else going on, I would think. Yes, the 1070 is slower overall than the 1080, but they use the same chip set (basically). 

I have not run Turbo in VR on anything other than a 1080 yet. In non-VR mode it performs much faster than LE on all hardware tested. The current version of Leadwerks runs VR faster than Unity, but some of our NASA stuff made with LE still struggles on a laptop with a 1070 mobile card.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

Yes. I get that you have a slowdown with VR on a 1070. Others don't have a noticeable slowdown with VR on a 1070. So, what does that say?

However, which mobile card is it on the laptop? What are the specs of the laptop compared to the system with the 1080? I'm just curious.

[Slimwaffle]

The 1080 seems to be working amazingly. I just have an issue with it and leadwerks. Its something to do with higher resolutions and dpi scaling. I posted another thread in general about it. Leadwerks as well as my published game aren't going into full screen properly and giving off weird resolution numbers in the game's menu.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

22 minutes ago, Wafflesoft said:

The 1080 seems to be working amazingly. I just have an issue with it and leadwerks. Its something to do with higher resolutions and dpi scaling. I posted another thread in general about it. Leadwerks as well as my published game aren't going into full screen properly and giving off weird resolution numbers in the game's menu.

Check out this thread:

There seems to be an issue with Leadwerks on some systems when attempting to run full screen. The thing I notice is that all of us have Nvidia 10 series cards (1050, 1070, 1080). 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Monkey Frog Studio said:

Yes. I get that you have a slowdown with VR on a 1070. Others don't have a noticeable slowdown with VR on a 1070. So, what does that say?

However, which mobile card is it on the laptop? What are the specs of the laptop compared to the system with the 1080? I'm just curious.

That says that we are running an application with a load heavy enough that the 1070 mobile GPU cannot process it within 11 milliseconds. Some of the models we use are two million polygons, with thousands of sub-parts, so that is not surprising. I think the Rover model we were using was 500,000 polys alone. A lot of the geometry we deal with looks like this:

So it is a big challenge to make it run fast enough for VR.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

12 minutes ago, Josh said:

That says that we are running an application with a load heavy enough that the 1070 mobile GPU cannot process it within 11 milliseconds. Some of the models we use are two million polygons, with thousands of sub-parts, so that is not surprising. I think the Rover model we were using was 500,000 polys alone.

Right. So, that's not really a problem with the 1070 and VR, but with optimizing the scene. But, once again, what version of the 1070 is this? Is it really a mobile version? Or a full 1070? I don't know how Nvidia is making their mobile cards these days, but there used to be big differences in performance between mobile cards and desktop cards, even in with the Nvidia 9 series.

[Slimwaffle]

wow half a mill in polys seems like alot. My game doesn't have any models that use more then 30k polys.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

1 minute ago, Wafflesoft said:

wow half a mill in polys seems like alot. My game doesn't have any models that use more then 30k polys.

Half a million? That was just the Rover model. He stated some of the models they were using were over 2 million. 

Even so, I know this isn't for a real-time game engine, but I can normally manipulate a 3D model with well over 9 million polys in real-time in my modeling program. Heck, in Blender 2.8 I've had many millions more than that and was still able to move about in the view port in real time.

[Josh]

15 minutes ago, Monkey Frog Studio said:

Half a million? That was just the Rover model. He stated some of the models they were using were over 2 million. 

Even so, I know this isn't for a real-time game engine, but I can normally manipulate a 3D model with well over 9 million polys in real-time in my modeling program. Heck, in Blender 2.8 I've had many millions more than that and was still able to move about in the view port in real time.

You were not getting 90 FPS with two views, which is what VR requires.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

Sigh. You're not answering the question I had posted before. Is the 1070 mobile the same as a 1070 for desktop? Also, what are the system specs of that laptop that NASA is using with the 1070 installed. It can all make a difference. In any case, it doesn't affect me. I am not (yet) developing for VR. However, as stated previously, from the articles and reviews I've read thus far, there is actually little difference between the performance of the 1070 and the 1080. Yes, there is some. But for most, it is not noticeable. So, if there is a big difference between Leadwerks on a laptop with a 1070 and Turbo running on a completely different PC with a 1080, I would guess there are more differences than just the video cards.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

Ok. According to those that test video cards (just read several benchmarks), there is a pretty decent difference between a mobile 1070 and the desktop version. So, that is most likely the answer. So, like I had originally stated, the 1070, at least desktop, is fine for VR. Your slow-down issues are most likely due to the differences here. Since the OP was originally getting a card for a desktop, these differences don't matter. And since he had already purchased a 1080, it doubly doesn't matter.

 

EDIT: apparently the main difference in speed comes from the power the GPU can draw upon. On the desktop, with a proper power supply, it's "unlimited". Not so on the average laptop. This can slow down the same GPU (1070 on a desktop vs. mobile) by 15% or more. On some game tests, the frame rate was HALVED on the mobile version.

[Josh]

I think when I looked it up, 50% sounds about right. I don't remember exactly. I don't know the other specs of the laptop, but yeah, a mobile card is going to be less performant than a desktop GPU.

The desktop 1070 is a good card and probably enough for most people who are not rendering CAD models in VR.

[Monkey Frog Studio]

Well, yeah. I agree. However, that's part of the problem right there ... CAD models. CAD is great when you need to physically build something from it. But it's pretty rotten when you need it for other things, like rendering or real-time 3D stuff. I've had a few jobs in the past taking CAD models for clients and reconstructing them accurately as SDS/poly models so that we could have reasonable render times. You'll definitely get the performance you need if you can not only convert these CAD files, but get someone to reduce them down. They look the same once reduced, but have a heck of a lot fewer polys!