JEMC said:
That's less demanding than 1440p, and current cards like the 970, 980 and 390/X should do it for many, but not all, games. The GTX 1070 could be your best (and cheaper) bet from Nvidia, and who knows if the big Polaris 10 from AMD could fill that spot too. But I would wait until we get actual reviews because Nvidia has only compared the 1080 vs 980Ti/Titan X in VR scenarios, which might not represent its real life performance, and there's not enough info about the 1070 or Polaris to guess how they'll compare with the current cards. |
And even for the benchmarks. What do you think, which one will be the best fit for me, when I have a 2560x1080p 75Hz FreeSync monitor? Which one will allow me to get 60-75 fps in all games in ultra at this resolution? The rest of my rig is i5 6600k and 16 GB DDR4 RAM.Good point: If we have to render a single 3D frame with 2N pixels and 2P polygons, it will be more demanding than rendering two 3D frames for VR (or for stereoscopic 3D, the maths involved are the same) with N pixels and P polygons each, as being two different projections of the same scene, most polygons will be the same, so VR will save bandwidth and will also need less CPU power and less system RAM, having to manage a less complex scene, while even without possible VR optimisations, the GPU will already be able to use its computing power more efficiently and at the highest overall res VR could still avoid CPU, bandwidth and memory related bottlenecks that would start affecting the same GPU rendering a single scene with twice the complexity of each VR frame.
