MSI Radeon R9 380 Gaming 4g VR-Ready?

[lechuck1]

so i bought a radeon r9 380 today hoping it would be vr ready, butthe perfomance test only says "capable" and recommends upgrading it.

anyone else with this h/w? i did read that it should be powerfull enough..

specs:
amd phenom 945 4X 3,40ghz
16gb ram
win7 64bit
msi radeon r9 380 gaming 4g

[Bad 💀 Motha]

LOL no way all those specs are WAY low.
Plus there is a good test u can run, no need to guess.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910

Plus it depends which "VR" setup u go with too; some will require at minimum; an HDMI (spec # based on the brand/model of VR) as well as multiples of USB 2.0 and/or 3.0 ports needed.

[BoNfiRe]

I get the same results. But yeah, I think it's not powerful enough to run full quality, so would end up not supporting all titles. As the tool says.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Plus alot of titles moving forward are going to require Win10 64bit; OS and Driver cut-offs coming in 2017; so be ready for that realistic picture of how things will go moving forward. And most consumer VR won't be on the market until this cut-off nears.

Aside from these VR tests; if you can't run games on High Visuals @ 1080p @ 120 FPS (not dropping below 90 FPS) then yea, your system is not "ready"

[BoNfiRe]

Originally posted by Bad-Motha:

LOL no way all those specs are WAY low.
Plus there is a good test u can run, no need to guess.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910

Plus it depends which "VR" setup u go with too; some will require at minimum; an HDMI (spec # based on the brand/model of VR) as well as multiples of USB 2.0 and/or 3.0 ports needed.

Now this is where I'm not sure, there are loads of people with lower specs than the OP, but are running VR just fine. The weird thing is, lower spec GPU's with the nVidia GPU can get all green. Yet the more powerful R9 series is just not enough.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Well for one; anything below AMD 290 or 390 are just not good performers.
at 1080p; a GTX 960 4GB can pull much more performance than a 380; again, AMD is way behind. Now the higher end AMD GPUs are good; but 280 or 380; no way.

[lechuck1]

mh thats too bad, guess i got too stingy and should have invested smarter.. payed 240 euros whivh is expensive enough imo

[BoNfiRe]

Originally posted by Bad-Motha:

Well for one; anything below AMD 290 or 390 are just not good performers.
at 1080p; a GTX 960 4GB can pull much more performance than a 380; again, AMD is way behind. Now the higher end AMD GPUs are good; but 280 or 380; no way.

That does make sense, more so with certain games too. I have two machines, one AMD, and one intel/nvidia. Both machines cost around the same to build (I think the AMD setup was slighlty more expensive), and in FO4 the AMD struggles to get above 30 fps on ultra and is far from a stable FPS. Yet, the intel/nVidia setup can run ultra at 50 stable FPS.

As for the OP, I would personally recommend sending it back, and getting an nVidia card for around the same budget.

[lechuck1]

i already installed it.. whats the usual return policy for stores in the EU if its already opened?

[Bad 💀 Motha]

And the "Steam VR test" is Source Engine, so the tests comparing CPUs & GPUs should be very balanced; now if u run this test and do not go below 90 FPS during the test, it is still possible for it to suggest system as "Capable" but slighly short-falls because of your actual system specs; well that is just because of how the test is also based around what all the VR brands have listed as minimum and/or recommended specs; basically below GTX 970 / R9 390 will fall short and thus it will say "we suggest upgrading your GPU" but with it saying this, if you are good FPS wise and are fairly high up on the "Capable" scoring line; then u theoretically should be "ok" to use VR. Just do not expect that 90+FPS on all titles.

[initiaLiSeD]

Originally posted by Bad-Motha:

Well for one; anything below AMD 290 or 390 are just not good performers.
at 1080p; a GTX 960 4GB can pull much more performance than a 380; again, AMD is way behind. Now the higher end AMD GPUs are good; but 280 or 380; no way.

I got 8.6 - Yay.
i7 980X (x6) @4.2GHz
R9 Fury

Back on point, http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_980_Ti_Matrix/23.html
The R9 380 2GB outperforms the GTX 960 at all but sub HD resolutions, the extra 2GB doesn't help much in most games on cards of this calibre: http://www.techspot.com/review/1114-vram-comparison-test/.

The OP's system will be limited by the CPU or Memory bandwidth, there is scope to improve this with some overclocking (if the motherboard and cooling is decent).

[BoNfiRe]

Originally posted by lechuck1:

i already installed it.. whats the usual return policy for stores in the EU if its already opened?

Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK, you have seven days to return, but as it's not faulty, you will end up with a credit, rather than a refund.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

FYI
FX-8350 (stock) w/ GTX 780 3GB also still get around 8.6 - 8.7 score

[initiaLiSeD]

No point returning it unless you plan to buy at a higher performance level

Halo - Titan 295

T1 - 980Ti/Fury-X

T2 - 980/Fury/390X

T3 - 970/390/290X

T4 - 960/380X

So a T1 or T2 level (significantly more expensive) card

Much better to balance your system by improving the CPU performance. As once you become CPU bound adding better graphics will not help.

[initiaLiSeD]

Originally posted by Bad-Motha:

FYI
FX-8350 (stock) w/ GTX 780 3GB also still get around 8.6 - 8.7 score

GTX780 is equivalent performance to a GTX970, so that would be expected as NVidia is currently out performing AMD in this particular test.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Given the pricing of VR
Why skimp so much on CPU & GPU; it's not going to be something everyone can afford; surely not for those with low-tier system specs. If you can afford to get VR, then u can afford a decent spec'd system to run it well. Otherwise VR will just be another disappointment for you. Just my 2-cents