SteamVR performance test~~ Uses my intergrated graphics card instead of my Nvidia Card

[Fyrex Obliquity 🌀]

Basically been searching all over the internet for help, but nothing has been significant enough.
I have a GeForce GTX 860m and my integrated intel HD graphics 4600.
I have updated both graphic cards and tried disabling the intel card.
I tried going through the nvidia control panel and choosing high performance as the preferred graphics.
And I checked my display adapters properties and it is using the intel card as well.
Please help with information if you can, I will give a link to pictures for a better explanation.
http://imgur.com/a/AzWUi

[Urutabi]

İlk olarak floydstimeis tarafından gönderildi:

You can possibly play it with a laptop GFX, but with possible motion sickness and lag. Why go through all that?

Because not all things in VR are industry standard games. Maybe you want to use a VR tool on the vive, on your laptop. And that tool might be insanely light on any GPU. So poeple would like to know what the limitations and possibilities are (like for instance the latency).

Perhaps the current nvidia m chips that go through the integrated graphics are not usable, but there's no reason other laptops won't be able to pull off some kind of smooth VR.

[MachPhoenix]

Guys, even though the SteamVR performance results may say that it tested the Portal demo on the Intel integrated graphics card, my guess is that the ACTUAL test was done on the dedicated mobile graphics card (like my GTX 960M), but when the spec sheet and performance results come out at the end, it reverts back to "displaying" the Intel card. This could explain why the demo was running so abnormally smooth - so smooth that I don't think it would have been possible if it was actually testing on the Intel integrated graphics card.

[=CrimsoN=]

İlk olarak Urutabi tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak floydstimeis tarafından gönderildi:

You can possibly play it with a laptop GFX, but with possible motion sickness and lag. Why go through all that?

Because not all things in VR are industry standard games. Maybe you want to use a VR tool on the vive, on your laptop. And that tool might be insanely light on any GPU. So poeple would like to know what the limitations and possibilities are (like for instance the latency).

Perhaps the current nvidia m chips that go through the integrated graphics are not usable, but there's no reason other laptops won't be able to pull off some kind of smooth VR.

Why spend $800+ on a VR device just to use it for tools?

That seems like an insane waste of money. You could just use GearVR or one of the other cheaper alternatives.

Vive is pretty much designed for gaming.

[electropulse]

İlk olarak Red Riding Hood tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Urutabi tarafından gönderildi:

Because not all things in VR are industry standard games. Maybe you want to use a VR tool on the vive, on your laptop. And that tool might be insanely light on any GPU. So poeple would like to know what the limitations and possibilities are (like for instance the latency).

Perhaps the current nvidia m chips that go through the integrated graphics are not usable, but there's no reason other laptops won't be able to pull off some kind of smooth VR.

Why spend $800+ on a VR device just to use it for tools?

That seems like an insane waste of money. You could just use GearVR or one of the other cheaper alternatives.

Vive is pretty much designed for gaming.

VR is about so much more than gaming. If that is what you think, you are incredibly short-sighted. As for why using Vive or Rift instead of GearVR? Because they provide positional tracking and not only rotational tracking, and have low persistance displays that operate at 90Hz. They are unquestionably superior VR experiences. Also, if you are using some sort of specialized VR tool it is likely for research purposes, or for demoing to businesses or industry in a professional setting. VR is going to fantastic for visualization of data in science and math and finance, and will be a huge boon to architects showing models to clients before breaking ground on construction.

[=CrimsoN=]

İlk olarak FeCuAgPb tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Red Riding Hood tarafından gönderildi:

Why spend $800+ on a VR device just to use it for tools?

That seems like an insane waste of money. You could just use GearVR or one of the other cheaper alternatives.

Vive is pretty much designed for gaming.

VR is about so much more than gaming. If that is what you think, you are incredibly short-sighted. As for why using Vive or Rift instead of GearVR? Because they provide positional tracking and not only rotational tracking, and have low persistance displays that operate at 90Hz. They are unquestionably superior VR experiences. Also, if you are using some sort of specialized VR tool it is likely for research purposes, or for demoing to businesses or industry in a professional setting. VR is going to fantastic for visualization of data in science and math and finance, and will be a huge boon to architects showing models to clients before breaking ground on construction.

That's why I said $800+ device.

Why use an $800+ device for just demos? That makes no sense when there are cheaper alternatives.

I never stated that VR is only for gaming. I stated that the Vive is pretty much designed with gaming as the main goal. Which is true. Otherwise Steam wouldn't back it...you know? the largest digital distributor of video games...

[electropulse]

İlk olarak Red Riding Hood tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak FeCuAgPb tarafından gönderildi:

VR is about so much more than gaming. If that is what you think, you are incredibly short-sighted. As for why using Vive or Rift instead of GearVR? Because they provide positional tracking and not only rotational tracking, and have low persistance displays that operate at 90Hz. They are unquestionably superior VR experiences. Also, if you are using some sort of specialized VR tool it is likely for research purposes, or for demoing to businesses or industry in a professional setting. VR is going to fantastic for visualization of data in science and math and finance, and will be a huge boon to architects showing models to clients before breaking ground on construction.

That's why I said $800+ device.

Why use an $800+ device for just demos? That makes no sense when there are cheaper alternatives.

I never stated that VR is only for gaming. I stated that the Vive is pretty much designed with gaming as the main goal. Which is true. Otherwise Steam wouldn't back it...you know? the largest digital distributor of video games...

Organizations using it for any of the applications I described really don't care about spending $800 for a better tool. That is extraordinarily inexpensive for the benefit it provides. Do you have any idea what VR gear used to cost? $50,000 to $150,000.

[=CrimsoN=]

İlk olarak FeCuAgPb tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Red Riding Hood tarafından gönderildi:

That's why I said $800+ device.

Why use an $800+ device for just demos? That makes no sense when there are cheaper alternatives.

I never stated that VR is only for gaming. I stated that the Vive is pretty much designed with gaming as the main goal. Which is true. Otherwise Steam wouldn't back it...you know? the largest digital distributor of video games...

Organizations using it for any of the applications I described really don't care about spending $800 for a better tool. That is extraordinarily inexpensive for the benefit it provides. Do you have any idea what VR gear used to cost? $50,000 to $150,000.

Did you really think I was referring to multi-million dollar companies in my original reply -_-

No, I was referring to the average consumer, and yes Im very much aware of what VR used to cost.

Gotta love people who love to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

[NutCr4Ck3r]

Try this out , if you already haven´t. http://imgur.com/a/FdXAR

[vitonick81]

İlk olarak Rand Paul 2020 tarafından gönderildi:

Guys, even though the SteamVR performance results may say that it tested the Portal demo on the Intel integrated graphics card, my guess is that the ACTUAL test was done on the dedicated mobile graphics card (like my GTX 960M), but when the spec sheet and performance results come out at the end, it reverts back to "displaying" the Intel card. This could explain why the demo was running so abnormally smooth - so smooth that I don't think it would have been possible if it was actually testing on the Intel integrated graphics card.

I actually think this might be correct.
I'm using an Alienware 17R3
i7 6700HQ
16 BG RAM
GeForce GTX 970m

My results though show the intel integrated graphics are being used for the test?!? No Way! I am having ZERO frames drop below 90 and I'm running fraps watching it only drop below 120 when it is at the most stressed point still staying above 115 FPS. I think it honestly has to be using my NVidia card in order to get these types of numbers. If it is actually not and it is really using my intel integrated then the 970m would probably crush the test.
That said, I've since ran the test while, along side, running the AlienAdrenaline Performance Monitoring software. (I have a saved recording and screenshot if anyone is interested.) The performance monitor software clearly shows my GTX 970M running at 100% GPU usage for the entirety of the test and dropping to zero before and after. The Intel(R) HD Graphics 530 is no where near able to run VR at "Capable" as the Steam Test results show. I have data to show that my 970M is the card being utilized during these tests.
I see talk above about latency between the GPU and the FSB and how using the NVidia card vs the integrated card will result in too much latency. That in nonsense, IMO. There are plenty of people running the cable connected Alienware Graphics Amplifier with a desktop GPU plugged into a laptop that are having excellent VR experiences. That is far from a PCI-E connection. NVidia themselves recommend this method. There's no way that the test is using the intel integrated over the NVidia because the NVidia will result in too much latency. The FSB and the PCI-E has plenty of throughput.

[Urutabi]

İlk olarak vitonick81 tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak Rand Paul 2020 tarafından gönderildi:

Guys, even though the SteamVR performance results may say that it tested the Portal demo on the Intel integrated graphics card, my guess is that the ACTUAL test was done on the dedicated mobile graphics card (like my GTX 960M), but when the spec sheet and performance results come out at the end, it reverts back to "displaying" the Intel card. This could explain why the demo was running so abnormally smooth - so smooth that I don't think it would have been possible if it was actually testing on the Intel integrated graphics card.

I actually think this might be correct.
I'm using an Alienware 17R3
i7 6700HQ
16 BG RAM
GeForce GTX 970m

My results though show the intel integrated graphics are being used for the test?!? No Way! I am having ZERO frames drop below 90 and I'm running fraps watching it only drop below 120 when it is at the most stressed point still staying above 115 FPS. I think it honestly has to be using my NVidia card in order to get these types of numbers. If it is actually not and it is really using my intel integrated then the 970m would probably crush the test.
That said, I've since ran the test while, along side, running the AlienAdrenaline Performance Monitoring software. (I have a saved recording and screenshot if anyone is interested.) The performance monitor software clearly shows my GTX 970M running at 100% GPU usage for the entirety of the test and dropping to zero before and after. The Intel(R) HD Graphics 530 is no where near able to run VR at "Capable" as the Steam Test results show. I have data to show that my 970M is the card being utilized during these tests.
I see talk above about latency between the GPU and the FSB and how using the NVidia card vs the integrated card will result in too much latency. That in nonsense, IMO. There are plenty of people running the cable connected Alienware Graphics Amplifier with a desktop GPU plugged into a laptop that are having excellent VR experiences. That is far from a PCI-E connection. NVidia themselves recommend this method. There's no way that the test is using the intel integrated over the NVidia because the NVidia will result in too much latency. The FSB and the PCI-E has plenty of throughput.

Thanks! I didn't think to probe the gpu usage; had no idea how good or bad intel hd graphics are ^_^

If you're saying that external thunderbolt etc. plug-in videocards run VR on laptops with no latency issues, then there's definitely no FSB issues. This is good news, it means theoretically you can run VR on a 2-in-1 tablet/notebook with an external GPU.

PS: Volvo, please update the test. (with this info at least)

[mtevrlab]

İlk olarak Nightenhelser tarafından gönderildi:

Did you try to set the 3D settings to be global instead of steam only?

Set the BIOS to boot to PCI Slot Graphics -
WHERE this is depends on the BIOS and motherboard, it changes with make and model. Basically you set it to Boot EXT PCI first (versus boot onboard graphics). You will have to poke around a bit. If you have your motherboard model number or manual I can help you find it.

[wilkems]

İlk olarak Alexalmighty502 Sup Acc tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak wilkems tarafından gönderildi:

I had the same issue. I have the Dell 7559 with an i7-6700HQ and the 960m. It's defaulting to the internal Intel 530 and still looks extremely smooth. I got about 10% of the frames above 90.

If it was actually using the 960m, even if it only bumped it to 25% above 90, I'd be totally ok with that. I would like to see more data though so I can see how close the other frames were to being 90.

If it's only 10% above 90, and then 90% over 75, then don't tell me my rig isn't ready. For an $800 laptop that's pretty freaking good enough.

no not true that rig is NOT ready WHATSOEVER you need a 980m AT LEAST for vr

Check some of the other posts. Either the test this offers is misleading in the performance you'll get, or the 960m really would be decent. Not amazing but much better than expected. Another user reported there 970m just crushing the test. Don't hate.

[Dragonbearwizard]

i have the same problem, it tested my intel HD graphics 530 on my intel I7-6700HQ, i have an Nvidea 980m and still the results swayed inbetween medium to high, leaning more towards high, with integrated graphics, and if i'm supposed to trust this test and what this tells me that means that i don't really mean i --> NEED <-- a high tech graphics card, but don't get angry just yet, it tells me i should upgrade my graphics card, it didn't test my graphics card, and i still don't know how to get it to run the test with my graphics card. point is, this test is horribly un-PC, there's no options to change what it tests, it doesn't include tests for different kinds of resolutions, so the bottom line for me personally is that this is an insufficient test, if you're looking for a test that includes your Graphics card without doing virtual back flips check out this one :
https://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/vrmark
(not a direct download link, 1GB download) this test gave me a much better idea of my chances of capability to run a VR machine.

[Anal Prolapse]

İlk olarak Fyrex Obliquity ╰🌀╮ tarafından gönderildi:

Basically been searching all over the internet for help, but nothing has been significant enough.
I have a GeForce GTX 860m and my integrated intel HD graphics 4600.
I have updated both graphic cards and tried disabling the intel card.
I tried going through the nvidia control panel and choosing high performance as the preferred graphics.
And I checked my display adapters properties and it is using the intel card as well.
Please help with information if you can, I will give a link to pictures for a better explanation.
http://imgur.com/a/AzWUi

I know your graphics card is strong enough. My brother is able to smoothly run VR on his with a 770M and it is extremely playable. I have the same problem and I just need to switch it over somehow

[DOTDOT]

yes this is whats happaning to me, I have a dell laptop with core i7 and gtx 1050 graphics card, and when I brought the laptop I got the windows mixed reality headset free with it, its been working fine untill the screens are stuffin up on it now like dead pixels or lcd rubish crap on it IDK to be honest, I am thinking of getting the HTC Vive but every where i read they say I need 1060 and the preformance test is showing the internal graphics card saying i need to upgreade, would it be worth still getting the HTC Vive or what do I need a new computer just to run it? its a dell xps 15 core i7 7th gen 7700 i think with gtx 1050 graphics card and 16 gig ram