VR minimum specification for Elite Dangerous (DK2)

The GTX980 is really the bare minimum for elite. I need to upgrade to a better card.
On planets or guardian places the framerate drops below 90fps many
times and that's not good and makes you after a while sick.
Sometimes it already have hicups in big space stations.
In desktop mode things run perfect.

I confirmed that by enable ctrl-f frame counter.

Using HTC Vive. with I7-4790K and more then enough system memory.
I hope the add soon a realtime desktop / VR switch mode.
 
I don't know if this is what you mean but I did see in Exigious' excellent "50 facts about Elite: Dangerous" video that, if you start Elite in VR mode, you can switch back to desktop mode at any time by simply changing the in-game 3D graphics settings.
I tried that at some point, it never worked for me. Unless i not found the rigth setting.
It's just crasy that you need to change with default elite so many settings to simple switch between desktop or VR.
Also how do you then switch back from desktop mode in VR without restart ?

I still not really tried EDprofiler anymore. It can be more easy then using that. If the devs want.
 
I tried that at some point, it never worked for me. Unless i not found the rigth setting.
It's just crasy that you need to change with default elite so many settings to simple switch between desktop or VR.
Also how do you then switch back from desktop mode in VR without restart ?

I still not really tried EDprofiler anymore. It can be more easy then using that. If the devs want.
If your main problem is "so many settings to simple switch between desktop or VR" (i.e. different graphics quality settings, bindings, HUD colours, gamma correction, etc, etc) then you really should try drkaii's EDProfiler - it's brilliant and basically solves those problems.
 
The GTX980 is really the bare minimum for elite....
That's rather an old card now, so only really an option as a 2nd hand card. And Fdev need to update the op & list an AMD equivalent!

Looking at AnandTech's bench the GTX 1060 6GB is a similar performing card & uses much less power.
From AMD's side the RX 580 8GB is a closely performing card to the GTX 980 (bar 2 games in that benchmark) & is slightly cheaper than the 1060 6GB, although it uses slightly more power than the 980!
The RX 590 is ~10% faster than the RX 580 but uses quite a lot more power & is ~25% more expensive!
Current prices from ebuyer, RX580 8GB from £195, GTX 1060 6GB from £210, RX 590 £250!
2nd hand GTX 980s are cheaper, but only have 4GB RAM & that can be a problem.

I've got an RX 580 & have borrowed an OR from a friend, I'll post how it does at some point.
 
Last edited:
You ever get around to testing out the RX 580 in VR? I'm eyeing the RX 590 Nitro+ from Sapphire, as a replacement for my aging R9 290 (the loud blower reference one). I was holding off on the 580 as that would be only about a 10% performance increase, but with the 590 looking to offer double that, I'm feeling tempted to pull the trigger and upgrade. I only want the increase to improve quality / performance in Elite Dangerous VR, but if the difference isn't going to bring much gains to my experience, I'll probably just end up waiting to see what Navi brings to the table for upgrade paths.
 
Last edited:
I have tried it a little bit, but been doing quite a bit of battling recently & don't want to try that with VR atm.
What I have found out though is that I can't turn up HMD supersampling (I think that's the name) over 1, or the FPS drops below 45 at stations. That said, I do have pretty much all my settings maxed out for 2D use & I haven't optimised for VR.

I doubt I'm going to go for VR tbh, the resolution is too low, & not being able to access the keyboard is a right PITA! What do you do for type chatting?
 
Most of the downsides of VR I get over just based on my lifestyle really. I'm the biggest loner there is, so typing isn't an issue, and I just nose peek and use the phone for looking stuff up. For the resolution, my vision isn't perfect at long distance irl, and the blur of VR I can just shrug off due to being used to working with less detail unless something is up in my face. With my 290 I'm able to get 1.25 HMD quality on my Lenovo if I set supersampling to 0.75, and all settings to VR low with model draw distance bumped up the tiniest notch. Get a little sick feeling if I stay inside a large station for long enough that my card starts thermal throttling, which is mostly what I'm hoping an upgrade will solve. If I'm able to bump a setting or two up to VR medium level as well, then the upgrade would be worth. Seeing as how the 580 doesn't seem to provide the power to use HMD quality above 1 without lowering supersampling, I'm thinking even the slight increase from the 590 won't make enough of a difference other than solve the thermal throttling issue. Thanks for the input, I'm probably going to wait for AMD to show what Navi can do, and keep an eye out for any deals on a GTX 1070 in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I think I'm getting supersampling & HMD quality mixed up, I have neither below 1, I'll just fire up ED & have a look.......
Yea sorry, I was merging the 2 together ;), so I have supersampling at 1 & HMD quality was at 1, trying to nudge 1 upto 1.25 caused the FPS drop, I can't remember which off hand & I can't test it atm.
 
Last edited:
Will elite perform well after this test,

Hi Rudolphus,

To be honest you will probably get acceptable performance, but it won't be good. Your CPU isn't really good enough for a locked 90FPS experience even with the most powerful GPU and your GPU wouldn't be able to maintain 90FPS even with the most powerful CPU.

That said, VR is a mind blowing experience and your PC will be able to give you a taster that you will almost certainly not be able to go back from. VR has cost me a fortune. I started on a i5 4670K with a GTX 970. I now have a i7 8700K with a GTX1080 :D That is enough for ED in VR at present.
 
Will elite perform well after this test,

Err, so what graphics card have you got?? R9 200 series is somewhat vague ;). That said, even the top end R9 single GPU isn't going to perform great, as Gortron says.

But I strongly disagree with Gortron about your CPU though, although it's an older generation Haswell, being a quad core hyperthreading CPU with clock speeds of 4-4.4 GHz I'd say it's got plenty of power there for ED VR.
Bearing in mind that ED even with VR doesn't use more than 4 cores.
 
Err, so what graphics card have you got?? R9 200 series is somewhat vague ;). That said, even the top end R9 single GPU isn't going to perform great, as Gortron says.

But I strongly disagree with Gortron about your CPU though, although it's an older generation Haswell, being a quad core hyperthreading CPU with clock speeds of 4-4.4 GHz I'd say it's got plenty of power there for ED VR.
Bearing in mind that ED even with VR doesn't use more than 4 cores.
ROG R9290X
 
Err, so what graphics card have you got?? R9 200 series is somewhat vague ;). That said, even the top end R9 single GPU isn't going to perform great, as Gortron says.

But I strongly disagree with Gortron about your CPU though, although it's an older generation Haswell, being a quad core hyperthreading CPU with clock speeds of 4-4.4 GHz I'd say it's got plenty of power there for ED VR.
Bearing in mind that ED even with VR doesn't use more than 4 cores.
ED uses as many cores and threads as you can chuck at it my old 4 core was bottlenecking quite often forcing my rift in ASW. 6 core 12 threads made a dramatic difference, that said 4 cores is perfectly playable but pairing one with a GTX 2080Ti would be a complete was of money if you were trying to get 90FPS. It would be fine if you want to ramp up settings at 45FPS with ASW on though.
 
No, ED only uses 4 cores max (unless theirs been a very recent change on that), but could it be that Oculus (or whichever VR) uses additional cores?
 
No, ED only uses 4 cores max (unless theirs been a very recent change on that), but could it be that Oculus (or whichever VR) uses additional cores?
I don't know where that comes from (I've seen it before) but it isn't right. It has always used as many cores and threads as it gets. All 12 threads get used on my PC when playing ED and Planet coaster which uses the same engine will send them all to 100% if enough stuff is in the theme park.

I've done loads of testing in the past and I'm 100% sure uses more than 4 threads. In fact I'd recommend 6 cores minimum if you want 90FPS.

 
That comes from Frontier, they state a quad core for min & recommended specs, & have done since before the game launched, that page was updated 2/19. But it's not referring to VR gaming. Looking at the VR spec page the core count spec is the same (although looking at the grx card spec they state, that page clearly hasn't been updated in a long time!).

That thread you linked is interesting, so it would seem running ED VR does use more than 4 cores, but that doesn't mean ED itself is, and Vtskr in that thread thinks so too.

I've got a 6 core CPU myself & am borrowing an OR, so I should do some testing ;).
 
That comes from Frontier, they state a quad core for min & recommended specs, & have done since before the game launched, that page was updated 2/19. But it's not referring to VR gaming. Looking at the VR spec page the core count spec is the same (although looking at the grx card spec they state, that page clearly hasn't been updated in a long time!).

That thread you linked is interesting, so it would seem running ED VR does use more than 4 cores, but that doesn't mean ED itself is, and Vtskr in that thread thinks so too.

I've got a 6 core CPU myself & am borrowing an OR, so I should do some testing ;).
Well yes but the minimum and recommended specs were done before AMD saved us from intel and more than 4 cores became a (proper) thing. Planet coaster which is newer recommends 4 cores with Hyperthreading, so right away that means 8 logical cores. It seems actual cores are of more benefit than Hyperthreading with ED when I messed about switching HT off and others have found the same. I think there recommended specs are out dated but the minimums remain unchanged.

I think there is more to it than just CPU cores and speed, with RAM speeds and chipsets coming into play but I can tell you with absolute certainty that if you plonked a 2080ti in a system with i7 Haswell (or worse i5 Haswell) it will bottleneck the GPU IF you are trying to get 90FPS in VR with ED. My i5 4670K was definitely bottlenecking my GTX 1080 in Stations, HAZ res, star ports and the like, particularly in open and other similar situations. Switching to an i7 8700K was more like dropping in a different GPU than CPU with the amount of performance gained. Others have switch from the i7 Haswell with a 1080ti and noticed a massive performance increase.

I think the real issue comes form the fact that in VR you are doing twice the draw calls to the GPU while running everything else. So you are effectively running at 180FPS and the system has to deal with all the VR tracking too. If it can't keep up ASW kicks in, CPU uses plummets (because now its got to make half the draw calls to the GPU) and it looks like your CPU is totally adequate, when it isn't.

It will be interesting to see how you get on but with your system it is the GPU that is going to hold you back so I'm not sure you will notice any difference with a 6 core CPU. Will be very interesting if you do though!

Here is a video I did a while back that shows my system running in VR settings put my GPU right on its limit and that would have gone to ASW before getting my 8700K. All it is running is ED in VR and it quite evenly using CPU apart from two which I think are the render threads.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsmhijQzvbs
 
Instead of the minimum for the game I should think people would be interested in what the headset manufacturer recommends.
Also, for those of you getting a headset, be aware that the Oculus uses 3 USB ports and one HDMI port.
So in addition to the graphics card, mind your ports.
 
Top Bottom