Rtx4060 8gb for Dcs VR ?

[TheAfghan]

Hi,
I asked which GPU was good for max 500.- to be able to play dcs world in VR properly on Reddit and someone told me that the rtx 4060ti 16gb was perfect for my price range.
So my question is, would an rtx4060 8gb be ok to play dcs in VR on an Acer N50-640 Gaming desktop PC and have a good experience?
Cz I saw videos on YouTube and articles on Google saying the rtx4060 ti is not very different from the rtx4060 8gb and that it's not worth it

[Troll Norris]

IMO 8GB VRAM is not enough for VR.
I play on flatscreen 2560*1440 and my 11GB VRAM is full.

[Undead Rufus]

4060 8GB will produce disappointing results in VR. I don't know your situation, but honestly I'd save and get a stronger card outright (at least a 4070 Super, preferably better).

[Insônia]

go amd
mid tier Ncard is pointless.
EDIT:
I thought the context is about gaming PC. if so
AMD is go to gaming solution at moment.

[Undead Rufus]

Originally posted by Insônia:

go amd
mid tier Ncard is pointless.

No CUDA cores.

Otherwise, yeah, comparable AMD cards have more VRAM. I need CUDA cores, so any AMD card is pointless for me.

EDIT:
I thought the context is about gaming PC. if so
AMD is go to gaming solution at moment.

You could just reply, instead of editing your original post in hopes that I won't see it.

AMD is the best VRAM solution. For VR in DCS, an AMD card might be a smarter buy than a comparably-priced NVIDIA card. For anything else—especially if you want raytracing or DLSS, or use your PC for certain production tasks (like PBR or AI)—NVIDIA is your only option.

There's currently no such thing as a "go to gaming solution."

[TheAfghan]

Originally posted by Undead Rufus:

4060 8GB will produce disappointing results in VR. I don't know your situation, but honestly I'd save and get a stronger card outright (at least a 4070 Super, preferably better).

So would an rtx4060ti 16gb be good for vr? Much better than an rtx4060 8gb ?

[Insônia]

generally speaking no.
the TI version might be *marginally better than base version. not much better.
VRAM capacity alone did not boost performance. when software resource management is designed correctly. The driver will always release or dump less frequently used assets into system memory(called paging). Paging may not have an huge impact on performance if those assets are not required immediately. Many used 3080 cards in such price range have less memory than the 4060 16G, but they perform much faster in every game and setting. because in most cases fast GPU+ memory paging still faster than slow GPU without paging.

The mid-tier cards with very large memory are useful for general-purpose computing, machine learning training, and cryptocurrency mining. These tasks are more memory-intensive and can benefit directly from VRAM size, unlike video game rendering.

It definitely uses more VRAM in VR, but it isn't particularly demanding. The issue is that in DCS mutilthread, every thread worker and resource loader makes far too many memory commits. Add salt to the injury. The LOD is not working properly. A larger VRAM may remedy memory paging stuttering until ED solves MT and LOD. It is poor programming and resource management; even 4090 can suffer from it. In my opinion, this is not the correct approach.

Copy paste from my old posts.
About performance scaling with Vsync(VR Vsync is always on):
https://i.imgur.com/LveG5PR.png
(GPU and CPU queue under vsync. vertical line is sync time, all the computing task must fit in between otherwise the frame will be skipped)

Uneven frame intervals in VR are the primary cause of motion sickness. As a result, most VR platforms rely on fixed-interval vsync rather than VRR. Most headsets only select a few sets of intervals.
CPU and GPU frame queue must fit perfectly within the interval.
https://i.imgur.com/q3USEQx.png
the "Ideal sync"

However, in VR, the GPU must render viewpoint twice. The overhead for each frame is around 1.5x to 2x more.

Sometimes it just doesn't fit.
https://i.imgur.com/syV8Lvm.png
gap between queue, frame skips, and stutter happens

The VR driver then forces the CPU to slow down to the next lower rate, creating a larger interval in which the GPU's and CPU's framebuffer can fit and rendered.
VR has a significant overhead. For instance, it may require a 100% faster GPU and a 70% faster CPU to reach higher Vsync rate.
Let's say you pay a lot of money for a 70% faster GPU and a 50% faster CPU. Obviously, this is an upgrades, but the frametime is still not enough. The VR driver still needs to tell it to slow down. As a result, VR's framerate does not improve. Except for input lag, temporal stability, microspikes. those could be improved.
You might also notice something very confusing. In Task Manager, your CPU and GPU usage has decreased even further! Low GPU and CPU usage, but still low framerate. The low usage is because the total performance capacity increased because of upgrade (it was just not fast enough).

So, if you want to play VR, you'll better start with highmid to high tier cards. you will not see huge improvement in framerate until you meet all of the criteria. The only improvement that upgrading can make before reaching all the criteria is to reduce latency and achieve better temporal/framerate stability.

for some better temporal stability is all they need. it's up to individual subjective and expectations.

Originally posted by Undead Rufus:

You could just reply, instead of editing your original post in hopes that I won't see it.

AMD is the best VRAM solution. For VR in DCS, an AMD card might be a smarter buy than a comparably-priced NVIDIA card. For anything else—especially if you want raytracing or DLSS, or use your PC for certain production tasks (like PBR or AI)—NVIDIA is your only option.

There's currently no such thing as a "go to gaming solution."

instead of editing your original post in hopes that I won't see it.
so sad..
If the user has a production requirement, they will choose whatever tool works best for the workflow. Average consumers don't buy those things just in case.. And topic targeting the 4060 range, and for gaming. You clearly have your reason, there is just no GPGPU in the context until then. it was so bizarre like you were offended by it. i dont see how it fit in topic or should i comment on that. without context it was silly. that's where is all the problem in those posts.

4060 tier card is lowest NV card for ray tracing you can go. Nothing wrong with wanting a RTX but this range did not really provide playable ray trace framerate without hammering other effects.
Nothing came free when they shoved extra raytrace and GPGPU related circuits into silicon. AMD has 10% rasterization performance ahead of it's competitor at same range and bigger VRAM. (If market are not plagued by scalpers.)
AMD has FSR, good coverage among games. there might be some sponsored DLSS exclusive. it's not end of the world.
it was more appealing to average gamer when budget is tight obviously.

[TheAfghan]

Originally posted by Insônia:

generally speaking no.
the TI version might be *marginally better than base version. not much better.
VRAM capacity alone did not boost performance. when software resource management is designed correctly. The driver will always release or dump less frequently used assets into system memory(called paging). Paging may not have an huge impact on performance if those assets are not required immediately. Many used 3080 cards in such price range have less memory than the 4060 16G, but they perform much faster in every game and setting. because in most cases fast GPU+ memory paging still faster than slow GPU without paging.

The mid-tier cards with very large memory are useful for general-purpose computing, machine learning training, and cryptocurrency mining. These tasks are more memory-intensive and can benefit directly from VRAM size, unlike video game rendering.

It definitely uses more VRAM in VR, but it isn't particularly demanding. The issue is that in DCS mutilthread, every thread worker and resource loader makes far too many memory commits. Add salt to the injury. The LOD is not working properly. A larger VRAM may remedy memory paging stuttering until ED solves MT and LOD. It is poor programming and resource management; even 4090 can suffer from it. In my opinion, this is not the correct approach.

Copy paste from my old posts.
About performance scaling with Vsync(VR Vsync is always on):
https://i.imgur.com/LveG5PR.png
(GPU and CPU queue under vsync. vertical line is sync time, all the computing task must fit in between otherwise the frame will be skipped)

Uneven frame intervals in VR are the primary cause of motion sickness. As a result, most VR platforms rely on fixed-interval vsync rather than VRR. Most headsets only select a few sets of intervals.
CPU and GPU frame queue must fit perfectly within the interval.
https://i.imgur.com/q3USEQx.png
the "Ideal sync"

However, in VR, the GPU must render viewpoint twice. The overhead for each frame is around 1.5x to 2x more.

Sometimes it just doesn't fit.
https://i.imgur.com/syV8Lvm.png
gap between queue, frame skips, and stutter happens

The VR driver then forces the CPU to slow down to the next lower rate, creating a larger interval in which the GPU's and CPU's framebuffer can fit and rendered.
VR has a significant overhead. For instance, it may require a 100% faster GPU and a 70% faster CPU to reach higher Vsync rate.
Let's say you pay a lot of money for a 70% faster GPU and a 50% faster CPU. Obviously, this is an upgrades, but the frametime is still not enough. The VR driver still needs to tell it to slow down. As a result, VR's framerate does not improve. Except for input lag, temporal stability, microspikes. those could be improved.
You might also notice something very confusing. In Task Manager, your CPU and GPU usage has decreased even further! Low GPU and CPU usage, but still low framerate. The low usage is because the total performance capacity increased because of upgrade (it was just not fast enough).

So, if you want to play VR, you'll better start with highmid to high tier cards. you will not see huge improvement in framerate until you meet all of the criteria. The only improvement that upgrading can make before reaching all the criteria is to reduce latency and achieve better temporal/framerate stability.

for some better temporal stability is all they need. it's up to individual subjective and expectations.

Originally posted by Undead Rufus:

You could just reply, instead of editing your original post in hopes that I won't see it.

AMD is the best VRAM solution. For VR in DCS, an AMD card might be a smarter buy than a comparably-priced NVIDIA card. For anything else—especially if you want raytracing or DLSS, or use your PC for certain production tasks (like PBR or AI)—NVIDIA is your only option.

There's currently no such thing as a "go to gaming solution."

instead of editing your original post in hopes that I won't see it.
so sad..
If the user has a production requirement, they will choose whatever tool works best for the workflow. Average consumers don't buy those things just in case.. And topic targeting the 4060 range, and for gaming. You clearly have your reason, there is just no GPGPU in the context until then. it was so bizarre like you were offended by it. i dont see how it fit in topic or should i comment on that. without context it was silly. that's where is all the problem in those posts.

4060 tier card is lowest NV card for ray tracing you can go. Nothing wrong with wanting a RTX but this range did not really provide playable ray trace framerate without hammering other effects.
Nothing came free when they shoved extra raytrace and GPGPU related circuits into silicon. AMD has 10% rasterization performance ahead of it's competitor at same range and bigger VRAM. (If market are not plagued by scalpers.)
AMD has FSR, good coverage among games. there might be some sponsored DLSS exclusive. it's not end of the world.
it was more appealing to average gamer when budget is tight obviously.

Ok so now what gpu do u recommend so that I can play dcs in VR but without paying more than 600$ ?
Otherwise than DCS and MSFS (that I want to play in VR) I just play MWIII and warzone on my pc and write some Emails.
I don't want to do AI, I just want to have a pretty good experience on dcs (and MSFS by the way) in VR. I don't need a 200fps 8k resolution in VR. Just a correct and pretty good experience in VR.

[Undead Rufus]

Originally posted by TheAfghan:

So would an rtx4060ti 16gb be good for vr? Much better than an rtx4060 8gb ?

I would not spend money on either a 4060 or 4060 Ti, if I intended to use it for VR. For optimal results, get a stronger card.

You can currently get a 4070 Super for around $600, or an AMD 7800 XT for a little less. If you don't care about DLSS or raytracing performance, then maybe consider the AMD for its extra VRAM.

Originally posted by Insônia:

so sad..
If the user has a production requirement, they will choose whatever tool works best for the workflow. Average consumers don't buy those things just in case.. And topic targeting the 4060 range, and for gaming. You clearly have your reason, there is just no GPGPU in the context until then. it was so bizarre like you were offended by it. i dont see how it fit in topic or should i comment on that. without context it was silly. that's where is all the problem in those posts.

4060 tier card is lowest NV card for ray tracing you can go. Nothing wrong with wanting a RTX but this range did not really provide playable ray trace framerate without hammering other effects.
Nothing came free when they shoved extra raytrace and GPGPU related circuits into silicon. AMD has 10% rasterization performance ahead of it's competitor at same range and bigger VRAM. (If market are not plagued by scalpers.)
AMD has FSR, good coverage among games. there might be some sponsored DLSS exclusive. it's not end of the world.
it was more appealing to average gamer when budget is tight obviously.

You replied to me in an edit of an earlier post. Weird, man. Maybe assuming your motivations was unfair, but I'm not sure what else I was supposed to think.

Pretty sure I've agreed at least twice now that AMD is the better budget-friendly option, assuming no need for raytracing or DLSS.

DLSS > FSR, but in a budget build it might not matter much.