Support NeoGAF

Enter the Dragon Punch · Jan 16, 2016

http://www.overclock3d.net/articles..._need_16k_at_240hz_for_true_immersion_in_vr/1

AMD's Raja Koduri, the head of the Radeon Technology group, has said for a long time that VR is going to the a driving force behind the advancements in GPU performance for many years to come and that he won't be happy until we can run games a 16K at 240Hz within his lifetime, saying that that would be the point where we will achieve "true immersion that you won't be able to tell apart from the real-world".

When I set the goal, I said, "We need to get here in our lifetime." We can't do that with Moore's law and hardware alone. We have to unleash software on this problem. We've been working with developers on all of these ideas. How can we get 16K by 16K displays refreshing at 240Hz with the picture that you want to draw? Developers want more control, on their side. They want console level GPU access on the PC.

What they've been able to achieve on consoles in the current generation, versus the current high-end PC-The current high-end PC specs are at least four to eight times faster than current consoles. The Fury X is an eight teraflop machine. The PS4 is a two teraflop machine. It's four times more compute in that single Fury. You can build a dual Fury PC. But PC doesn't give you that much better an experience with cutting edge content, because they can extract more performance from a console. They're also investing a lot of IP into that architecture. They're doing some really clever things that are not possible on the PC yet.

Raja Koduri says that we will have to rely on a lot more than Moore's Law in order to get into the "VR Era", where resolutions and refresh rates will be much higher than today's Oculus Rift or HTC Vive headsets. Large and intelligent changes in both GPU and software architectures will be the key to driving up performance while lowering power consumption, which is exactly what the AMD's Radeon Technologies group is working towards.

really neat article. i hope hbm2 can help achieve what developers are looking for - it'd be a wonderful sight to see these modern GPUs pushed to their theoretical limits in games.

the thought of a 16k x 16k display, let alone vr headset, that runs at 240Hz... makes me shiver thinking about the pure cost of that

overheat if old

Herne · Jan 16, 2016

Ouch. That is... some way off.

blame space · Jan 16, 2016

why would it be a perfect square

EDIT ok I finally get it. 2 16k displays because of the 3d.

Enter the Dragon Punch · Jan 16, 2016

blame space said:
why would it be a perfect square

tru

turns out it's 8640p (15,360 × 8,640 progressive scan; aka "16K QUHD")

my bad i guess, but i thought VR is a square on each side anyways

das a lot of fuckin pixels tho

Jigolo · Jan 16, 2016

blame space said:
why would it be a perfect square

Because the Earth is square

ekim · Jan 16, 2016

If VR really takes off than the current HMDs now are what 3D graphics were 1996 to us. Cool and all but in 20 years...

Conduit · Jan 16, 2016

16k x 16k???

PS7 maybe?

nkarafo · Jan 16, 2016

My grandchildren will enjoy this, i'm sure.

Malygos · Jan 16, 2016

Where is he getting 240hz from? I thought Oculus did psychological studies that found ~88hz was where people stopped unconsciously noticing flickering. 16x16k per eye sounds about right though for "true" vr.

RandomExpletive · Jan 16, 2016

Thats a lotta pixels to draw. Will be interesting to see how display tech evolves as VR (hopefully) picks up speed

Pif · Jan 16, 2016

Also wearing huge nerdy bricks in your face is not cool.

Can't wait until stylish and slim VR headset options get developed soon so there is social acceptance towards wearing it in public in the future.

demented waffle · Jan 16, 2016

So in about 20 years?

Snafu · Jan 16, 2016

Palmer Luckey mentioned 8K per eye two years ago.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...esolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/

"To get to the point where you can't see pixels, I think some of the speculation is you need about 8K per eye in our current field of view [for the Rift]," he said. "And to get to the point where you couldn't see any more improvements, you'd need several times that. It sounds ridiculous, but HDTVs have been out there for maybe a decade in the consumer space, and now we're having phones and tablets that are past the resolution of those TVs. So if you go 10 years from now, 8K in a [head-mounted display] does not seem ridiculous at all."

This is nothing new. AMD showed this slide at the Fiji launch event last year. Replace "tomorrow" with 20 years

Hyun Sai · Jan 16, 2016

I hope I'll still be alive...

GAF. · Jan 16, 2016

10 years from I'll bump this thread from my VR and post L-O-L 16k

It's all about 24k

PHOENIXZERO · Jan 17, 2016

GAF. said:
10 years from I'll bump this thread from my VR and post L-O-L 16k

It's all about 24k

It's a lot further out than 10 years, 4k isn't standard yet (if it ever will be) and then there's 8k that's still out there. For gaming we're probably still another GPU generation (the one after this upcoming generation that is) out before a single GPU can handle 4k at 60FPS with max settings (then a reasonable price for it might take longer) let alone 120, 144 or 240.

blastprocessor · Jan 17, 2016

Nice. Wonder how much this beast will cost.

Chumpion · Jan 17, 2016

AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

Hoje0308 · Jan 17, 2016

Chumpion said:
AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

I've heard about this before, but forgot to follow up. What's the quick and dirty explanation?

viveks86 · Jan 17, 2016

Make that wireless while you are at it

Locuza · Jan 17, 2016

Chumpion said:
AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

As if it would be something new for them.

Hoje0308 said:
I've heard about this before, but forgot to follow up. What's the quick and dirty explanation?

You try to render/draw the points the human eye is looking at, at a very high resolution, but around the focus point you decrease the resolution.
The consumer doesn't notice and you don't have to render the whole scene with the native resolution, which obviously saves a ton of processing resources.

DieH@rd · Jan 17, 2016

16k by 16k was the same figure that was mentioned by Michael Abrash years ago when he talked about what our eyes can actually perceive. As for framerate, he said that low persistence flicker rate will have to be increased with resolution bump, so 240hz does not surprise me.

Chumpion said:
AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

Why would they be worried about this? Foveated rendering will work on all rendering hardware as soon as eye tracking sensors become introduced to VR headsets.

Goldfishking · Jan 17, 2016

Hoje0308 said:
I've heard about this before, but forgot to follow up. What's the quick and dirty explanation?

The parts you focus on are higher resolution while the periphery of your vision is lower res. So the part you are looking at is 16,000 x 16,000 while the rest is much lower.

Would look like this if you were focusing on the centre

Arzehn · Jan 17, 2016

Of course AMD would say this.

Also, "true immersion" won't involve strapping panels to your face.

Übermatik · Jan 17, 2016

Everyone's going crazy but I don't think it's far-fetched to say we'll see this level of tech in 8 years.

PGamer · Jan 17, 2016

Malygos said:
Where is he getting 240hz from? I thought Oculus did psychological studies that found ~88hz was where people stopped unconsciously noticing flickering. 16x16k per eye sounds about right though for "true" vr.

Just because people don't notice flickering anymore doesn't mean there isn't still room for improvement otherwise. 90 Hz isn't the end game for frame rates.

Hoje0308 said:
I've heard about this before, but forgot to follow up. What's the quick and dirty explanation?

More or less the image is only rendered at full resolution where the user is looking and the resolution is lowered as you move farther from that point. Since the eye can only see full detail where it is focused and not in its peripheral vision you can save processing power without perceivable quality loss.

hesido · Jan 17, 2016

Foveated rendering should help. Like, really really help.

Kieli · Jan 17, 2016

Chumpion said:
AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

I'm sure several of the brightest computer scientists and engineers with innumerable PhDs and thousands of years of experience among them do not know the concept of foveated rendering.

vpance · Jan 17, 2016

I think I'd be pretty happy with 4K per eye with foveated rendering.

rambis · Jan 17, 2016

Übermatik;192403821 said:
Everyone's going crazy but I don't think it's far-fetched to say we'll see this level of tech in 8 years.

Not a chance if we're talking single GPU. If we consider a 980Ti as sufficient for 4K at 60hz(hint:its not) then we would need at least 16x the power. And thats just a rough game agnostic estimation. Real world requirements are usually much more unforgiving.

rrs · Jan 17, 2016

by that time, why not just get a chip in my brain and surf the VR world like in all the cyberpunk things ever

MrCunningham · Jan 17, 2016

Chumpion said:
AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

Sure foveated rendering will help a lot, but screen pixel density is still going to be an important part of creating a convincing image in VR. You are still going to see the pixels of the screen when they are pressed up close to your face.

blastprocessor · Jan 17, 2016

Malygos said:
Where is he getting 240hz from? I thought Oculus did psychological studies that found ~88hz was where people stopped unconsciously noticing flickering. 16x16k per eye sounds about right though for "true" vr.

So why are Sony delivering 120Hz? There are also 144Hz monitors.

etta · Jan 17, 2016

blastprocessor said:
Nice. Wonder how much this beast will cost.

Will probably be some amount with the unit in litres of water.

Rising_Hei · Jan 17, 2016

what else would he say? he needs to keep selling more advanced GPUs

ItIsOkBro · Jan 17, 2016

Malygos said:
Where is he getting 240hz from? I thought Oculus did psychological studies that found ~88hz was where people stopped unconsciously noticing flickering. 16x16k per eye sounds about right though for "true" vr.

Well 1 Intel hertz is about 3 AMD hertz so

etta · Jan 17, 2016

ItIsOkBro said:
Well 1 Intel hertz is about 3 AMD hertz so

Ice cold.

HStallion · Jan 17, 2016

This is how they trick you into walking out of the silo and cleaning the lens!

Lactose_Intolerant · Jan 17, 2016

Chumpion said:
AMD is in for a rude awakening when they get on Intarwebz for the first time and learn about foveated rendering.

amd won't even be in business by the time their goal becomes a reality.

Hoje0308 · Jan 17, 2016

Goldfishking said:
Snip

Locuza said:
Snap

PGamer said:
Snip

Ah, I see. Aside from expanded gameplay possibilities, the advancements in tech that will accompany VR are one of the things that has me most excited about it.

tokkun · Jan 17, 2016

he won't be happy until we can run games a 16K at 240Hz within his lifetime, saying that that would be the point where we will achieve "true immersion that you won't be able to tell apart from the real-world".

It will take more than high resolutions and refresh rates to make it indistinguishable from the real world.

Chumpion · Jan 17, 2016

DieH@rd said:
Why would they be worried about this? Foveated rendering will work on all rendering hardware as soon as eye tracking sensors become introduced to VR headsets.

I was just pointing out how full of shit AMD is when they pretend foveated rendering doesn't exist. Because that's where the >1 PFLOPS figure comes from.

pswii60 · Jan 17, 2016

ekim said:
If VR really takes off than the current HMDs now are what 3D graphics were 1996 to us. Cool and all but in 20 years...

This.

Locuza · Jan 17, 2016

Chumpion said:
I was just pointing out how full of shit AMD is when they pretend foveated rendering doesn't exist. Because that's where the >1 PFLOPS figure comes from.

Which company is not full of shit, when it comes to some pr slides?

bj00rn_ · Jan 17, 2016

Old news. And Michael Abrash even said we may even need up to 1000 Hz to get completely rid of judder.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/down-the-vr-rabbit-hole-fixing-judder/

Anyway. there are already rumours about Samsung doing R&D on near-future 11K displays for mobile:

http://english.etnews.com/20150710200002

Skux · Jan 17, 2016

Title is misleading. He never says anything about 16k x2 at 240hz being "required" for anything.

MrCunningham · Jan 17, 2016

Malygos said:
Where is he getting 240hz from? I thought Oculus did psychological studies that found ~88hz was where people stopped unconsciously noticing flickering. 16x16k per eye sounds about right though for "true" vr.

Flicker free and lag free are two different things. There's going to be latency at 88hz that will be noticeably there.

vpance · Jan 17, 2016

DieH@rd said:
16k by 16k was the same figure that was mentioned by Michael Abrash years ago when he talked about what our eyes can actually perceive. As for framerate, he said that low persistence flicker rate will have to be increased with resolution bump, so 240hz does not surprise me.

Apparently the fovea is only around 8MP in resolution which is basically 4K. Too bad our damn FOV is so large, lol. If we want the full FOV of 220 the res of the screen needs to be massive.

CariusD · Jan 17, 2016

These slides ignore foveated rendering for a good reason. AMD can't bet on the tech maturing at any specific point in time.

WolvenOne · Jan 17, 2016

So, we're talking about 500 PS4's duct taped together?

....I'm going to need more tape.

Edit: for context, my money is on the next round of consoles being roughly 12x as powerful as the PS4. That'd be overkill for 1080p visuals, but not so much for 4k and VR.

Support NeoGAF

AMD's Raja Koduri says that we need 16,000x16,000 at 240Hz for "true immersion" in VR

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Neo Member

Member

Banned

Member

The Amiga Brotherhood

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

fucking juniors

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

The Amiga Brotherhood

my hard graphic balls

Member

Member

my hard graphic balls

Now what's the next step in your master plan?

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads