Looking for new GPU for Pico 4 - 4070 Ti, 4080 or 4090?

[Russkly]

As per title - feeling like my 3080 Ti isn't working as well with the Pico 4 as more powerful cards apparently do, I believe due to the necessity for compression before sending data to the headset (pls correct me, if I'm wrong).

 

So, obviously the 4090 is the ultimate option, but two things give me pause here: the price (still well over GBP1,500 in the UK); and the size (max. for my case is 335mm length, and most of the 4090s are longer than that).

 

So that leaves me with a choice between a 4070 Ti and a 4080 (unless I go for AMD for the first time ever).

 

Can anyone provide any insight into which might work best for Il2 via a Pico 4, please?

 

VR and thus the need for a better GPU is entirely driven by Il2, as most of the other stuff I play is not graphics intensive, so in essence any upgrade/investment is almost entirely for Il2.

 

Appreciate any help and thanks in advance.

 

 

[Qcumber]

I've got a 4070 and it works well with Il-2 for me. Settings to Ultra, runs at 72fps with VD set to Godlike and OXRTK at 120% FSR. I guess it depends on the map, number of assets etc. but for me it works great most of the time. 

[Russkly]

9 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

I've got a 4070 and it works well with Il-2 for me. Settings to Ultra, runs at 72fps with VD set to Godlike and OXRTK at 120% FSR. I guess it depends on the map, number of assets etc. but for me it works great most of the time. 

 

Thanks Qcumber.

 

What GPU did you upgrade from out of interest, or is the 4070 your sole frame of reference?

 

And is it the Ti or the standard?

 

I'm running my 3080 Ti at similar settings to you apart from 90fps/OXRTK 80% FSR/100% sharpening - I'm finding that the cockpit and immediate surroundings look good, but anything in the mid distance doesn't look as sharp as it did with the Reverb G2 (in the sweetspot of course), and this of course impacts spotting.

 

I'm thinking that that is down to the compression, which my card is struggling with at those settings, but I stand to be corrected.

 

[Qcumber]

49 minutes ago, Russkly said:

What GPU did you upgrade from out of interest, or is the 4070 your sole frame of reference?

I upgraded from an rx 6700. The rtx 4070 is a massive improvement. I'm now running this at full Godlike without OXRTK and am still keeping 72 fps in single player. I don't have the G2 to compare it to. Just a rift s. 

[Russkly]

I suppose my question should have been more like: for Il2 with a Pico 4 (or Quest 2, I imagine), will a 4070 Ti or a 4080 really make a huge difference in graphical quality and performance, or does one really have to go to a 4090 for that 'wow!' factor?

 

Ultimately, if I'm going to chuck >EUR1.500 at a GPU upgrade, I'd like to know that Il2 via a Pico 4 will give me that impact. Going from Rift S to Reverb G2 did give me that for example.

 

Appreciate that the Pico 4 is a bit niche still, esp. for Il2, but here's hoping that someone out there has been through a similar process...

[102nd-YU-devill]

I went from g2 with 3080ti to pico4.

My performance dropped slightly due to 60hz for g2 vs 73hz for pico.

I then got a 4090 and am playing il2 now at 90hz with almost all details maxed out and at 100% native headset resolution.

It may not be the same leap as from oculus to g2 but now i feel i have a platform that allows me to play il2 in vr very naturally without fatigue.

Whoever uses vr i think knows what i want to say by that.

[Russkly]

7 hours ago, 102nd-YU-devill said:

I went from g2 with 3080ti to pico4.

My performance dropped slightly due to 60hz for g2 vs 73hz for pico.

I then got a 4090 and am playing il2 now at 90hz with almost all details maxed out and at 100% native headset resolution.

It may not be the same leap as from oculus to g2 but now i feel i have a platform that allows me to play il2 in vr very naturally without fatigue.

Whoever uses vr i think knows what i want to say by that.

 

Thank for that.

 

It does seem that the 4090 is the way to go for that 'Wow!' upgrade.

 

Looks like the 4070 Ti isn't going to be an Il2 game changer compared to the 3080 Ti, and a lot of people are quite negative about the 4080's bang-for-buck.

 

However a 4090 at £1,500-1,900 just for Il2 isn't going to happen for me, so it looks as though I'll have to wait to see how the GPU market develops; maybe when/if a 4080 Ti comes out.  Perhaps by then the HMD market will also have moved on too, and there will be something in the mid-range again following the Reverb's impending withdrawal. At the moment we've either got low/mid options (Pico 4, Quest 2) or massively pricey ones (Pimax, Varjo).

 

 

[Youtch]

11 hours ago, 102nd-YU-devill said:

I went from g2 with 3080ti to pico4.

My performance dropped slightly due to 60hz for g2 vs 73hz for pico.

I then got a 4090 and am playing il2 now at 90hz with almost all details maxed out and at 100% native headset resolution.

It may not be the same leap as from oculus to g2 but now i feel i have a platform that allows me to play il2 in vr very naturally without fatigue.

Whoever uses vr i think knows what i want to say by that.

Did you change your cpu as well? I thought in VR CPU was the bottleneck?

[1Sascha]

Hmm.. really? My 4070 (non Ti) works pretty well with the Reverb G2 - which should be a little more demanding than the Pico 4 AFAIK, but even if I'm wrong, I'd say they're both on a similar level. Not sure how the Pico works... does it run on SteamVR? Not sure if OpenComposite is an option with this set, but switching away from SteamVR gave me a nice performance boost. In 90 Hz, I do have to reduce resolution to 75, 70 %, but in 60Hz I can go up to 120% or higher and crank up the in-game settings to Ultra and everything runs smoothly, even in career missions.

 

I could probably still need more GPU horsepower (no such thing as a GPU that's "too fast" when it comes to VR, IMO), but I'm not regretting my decision to go 4070 and not 4070 Ti. Saved me €200 ...

 

In any case: The 4070 Ti should be plenty for the Pico 4. The only drawbacks that I can see with it are the relatively small amount of VRAM for this class of card (12 GB is a bit weak in this price category) and overall price, of course. Still: WRT to sheer power, the 4070 is about on par with the 3080 while the 4070 Ti pretty much beats any 30xx card except perhaps the 3090 Ti.

[Hoss]

Use this to team up your CPU with a GPU and the resolution on your VR so you don't have throttle in-game, there is even a DCS option.

 

https://pc-builds.com/

 

I believe these guys are AMD fanboys.... pick equal intel and AMD processor and the difference is amazing. I think they are just guessing on the intel portion.

 

Cheers.

 

[chiliwili69]

On 8/13/2023 at 6:24 PM, Russkly said:

feeling like my 3080 Ti isn't working as well with the Pico 4 as more powerful cards apparently do

IL-2 VR performance is very depedent on CPU.

I think you have an i9-11900K processor, so it can easily became your bottleneck if you use the CPU demanding IL-2 settings (mirrors, canopy reflec, ultra shadows, etc)

 

A 3080Ti should be plenty for IL-2 with Pico4 using 72Hz mode and HVEC. (72 Hz will also help your CPU to not be the bottleneck).

 

The real limit visual quality of the Pico4 resides on the Pico4 XR2 chip. The decoding limit is 150Mbps. So, it is not a question of GPU compression capability.

 

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by chiliwili69

[dburne]

4090 if can swing it, otherwise close as can get.

[Russkly]

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

IL-2 VR performance is very depedent on CPU.

I think you have an i9-11900K processor, so it can easily became your bottleneck if you use the CPU demanding IL-2 settings (mirrors, canopy reflec, ultra shadows, etc)

 

A 3080Ti should be plenty for IL-2 with Pico4 using 72Hz mode and HVEC. (72 Hz will also help your CPU to not be the bottleneck).

 

The real limit visual quality of the Pico4 resides on the Pico4 XR2 chip. The decoding limit is 150Mbps. So, it is not a question of GPU compression capability.

 

 

 

Thanks, chili.

 

My i9-11900 automatically boosts to 5Ghz, so I was hoping that would not be a problem. Mirrors and canopy reflections are off, as I play mostly FC, but shadows are at Ultra.

 

I am at 72fps and HEVC 10-bit.

 

So, in your view it's the Pico 4 that is the rate limiting factor in terms of visual quality, not the GPU? In which case I need to look at an HMD upgrade rather than a GPU upgrade?

 

I must admit that the Reverb G2 did provide better visual clarity than the Pico 4, at least when in its sweet spot.

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, Russkly said:

I must admit that the Reverb G2 did provide better visual clarity than the Pico 4, at least when in its sweet spot.

 

You are right there. Even if both headsets has the same panel resolution, the Pico4 has to go through the 150Mbps decoding limit of the chip, so a better GPU will not help.

 

If you mantain always 72fps, then your CPU is OK. You have fpsVR app to test that, but FC maps is quite less demanding in terms of CPU.

 

You can see here some pictures of the Pico4 vs Index, and here some G2 vs Index, so you can see that G2 is a bit above Pico4 on visual detail.

[Russkly]

9 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

You are right there. Even if both headsets has the same panel resolution, the Pico4 has to go through the 150Mbps decoding limit of the chip, so a better GPU will not help.

 

If you mantain always 72fps, then your CPU is OK. You have fpsVR app to test that, but FC maps is quite less demanding in terms of CPU.

 

You can see here some pictures of the Pico4 vs Index, and here some G2 vs Index, so you can see that G2 is a bit above Pico4 on visual detail.

 

Thanks again - knowledgeable input.

 

I must confess that I would have been very happy to have stayed with the Reverb if it hadn't died just after the warranty expired.

 

The Pico 4 is fine and has some advantages, but the Reverb, with its DP connection, just feels like a more serious piece of kit.

 

Maybe I'll get a second-hand Reverb G2 V2 on eBay and take the risk of it going wrong again...

[Qcumber]

3 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Pico 4 has to go through the 150Mbps

It's better if you use the 400 Mbps with virtual desktop h264+

[Russkly]

14 minutes ago, Qcumber said:

It's better if you use the 400 Mbps with virtual desktop h264+

 

Why is that, Qcumber?

 

From what I've read, HEVC is the recommended codec for Nvidia cards, and is certainly what gets selected by VD, if I leave the codec selection to automatic.

 

I've tried both and can't discern much difference.

[Qcumber]

13 hours ago, Russkly said:

 

Why is that, Qcumber?

 

From what I've read, HEVC is the recommended codec for Nvidia cards, and is certainly what gets selected by VD, if I leave the codec selection to automatic.

 

I've tried both and can't discern much difference.

From what I have read in the discord channels HEVC 10 bit at 150 Mbps is about equivalent to 300 Mbps h264 in terms of compression detail. It also allows better colour gradients. H264+ pulls ahead on detail when pushed to 400mbps, if your router can handle it. H274 also has foveated encoding for NVIDIA gpus so in theory should produce slightly better results but I can't find any direct comparisons. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference. Try it and see if it gives you any better performance. 

[Russkly]

13 hours ago, Qcumber said:

From what I have read in the discord channels HEVC 10 bit at 150 Mbps is about equivalent to 300 Mbps h264 in terms of compression detail. It also allows better colour gradients. H264+ pulls ahead on detail when pushed to 400mbps, if your router can handle it. H274 also has foveated encoding for NVIDIA gpus so in theory should produce slightly better results but I can't find any direct comparisons. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference. Try it and see if it gives you any better performance. 

 

Wilco. Ta

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 8/18/2023 at 10:48 AM, chiliwili69 said:

 

The real limit visual quality of the Pico4 resides on the Pico4 XR2 chip. The decoding limit is 150Mbps. So, it is not a question of GPU compression capability

Same is true for quest 2/ pro ?

[chiliwili69]

17 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Same is true for quest 2/ pro ?

When I had the Pico4 I went down deeper to understand how to obtain the best quality and performance using Virtual Desktop.

So, this is a limitation of the chip, which is also used in Quest2 and QuestPro. So yes, the same limit should apply.

 

On a reddit chat with the creator of VirtualDesktop (ggodin) he say that the decoding limit of the XR2 chip  with HEVC (H265) was 150Mbps:

 

 

and also this:

 

 

the decoding limit of the other codec AVC (H264) is higher but according to ggodin it is not better than HEVC at 150Mbps

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@chiliwili69 thanks

I was thinking about buying QP after seeing what one can achieve with good hardware. 

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/quest-pro-owners-club.18963280/

In the past I had different VR headsets but always selling them back after few months. Never had one with pancake lenses and the optics in QP supposed to be very good for simming. I gonna wait and  see how Q3 will perform in PCVR.

Edited September 5, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Panzerlang]

All I can add is that with the current top Intel CPU and a 4090 the Pico4 performs pretty much flawlessly with max settings. I've not seen it drop below 87fps and it's smoooth.

That is, however, with it connected to the router via a CAT. Wireless was not good.

SteamVR.

[dburne]

6 minutes ago, Hetzer-JG52 said:

All I can add is that with the current top Intel CPU and a 4090 the Pico4 performs pretty much flawlessly with max settings. I've not seen it drop below 87fps and it's smoooth.

That is, however, with it connected to the router via a CAT. Wireless was not good.

SteamVR.

 

4090 is indeed an awesome card especially for VR.

[chiliwili69]

On 9/5/2023 at 9:07 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I was thinking about buying QP

 

I tested the QP and deliver it back. Read here.

The Pico4 is better in terms of confort, better FOV and it has pancake lenses.

Better to wait for Q3 rather than QP. Just my opinion.

[dburne]

50 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

I tested the QP and deliver it back. Read here.

The Pico4 is better in terms of confort, better FOV and it has pancake lenses.

Better to wait for Q3 rather than QP. Just my opinion.

 

I see several sim enthusiasts on the forums that are really liking their Quest Pros. mbucchia has eye tracked dynamic foveated rendering working with it now in DCS  which vastly increases performance (I use it with the Aero). I actually was surprised at the growing popularity of the Quest Pro with the flight sim community.

 

Surprised on FOV? QP is listed as 106 degrees, Pico 4 as 105 degrees. I would imagine they are about pretty much the same. Quest Pro also has pancake lenses.

Most know I am no fan of Meta at all and stay away from them - if I had to choose between the two though I would pick Quest Pro.

Edited September 6, 2023 by dburne

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

43 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

I tested the QP and deliver it back. Read here.

The Pico4 is better in terms of confort, better FOV and it has pancake lenses.

Better to wait for Q3 rather than QP. Just my opinion.

I read that already. I decided to wait and see what Q3 optics clarity, latency would compre to the QP. Then I decide to which buy. 

BTW how was far contact spoting, far  landscape clarity in QP when you test it aka clarity at far distances?

2 minutes ago, dburne said:

vastly increases performance.

Really, not just 5-10 fps ?

[dburne]

6 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

Really, not just 5-10 fps ?

 

Really - in most cases. I think if one is largely CPU bound it may be somewhat less. I know in my Aero it is far greater.

Keep in mind when talking about this feature I am referring to DCS.  I do not believe it works properly with IL-2 due to the rendering technique. So if you only play IL-2 then that feature would not mean much to you.

Edited September 6, 2023 by dburne

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

30 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

Really - in most cases. I think if one is largely CPU bound it may be somewhat less. I know in my Aero it is far greater.

Keep in mind when talking about this feature I am referring to DCS.  I do not believe it works properly with IL-2 due to the rendering technique. So if you only play IL-2 then that feature would not mean much to you.

I was talking in general, not IL2 specific . I know it has potential, meybe not as big as Michael Abrash was talking about but not as low as now. Anyway  looks like game engines need to be developed DFR in mind from beginning for the best results.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[dburne]

11 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I was talking in general, not IL2 specific . I know it has potential, meybe not as big as Michael Abrash was talking about but not as low as now. Anyway  looks like game engines need to be developed in DFR in mind from beginning for the best results.

 

Well I did say in my post that it was only DCS currently so that was what I was talking. And with DCS and Aero it is a game changer for sure, and in many cases with QP also.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

6 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

Well I did say in my post that it was only DCS currently so that was what I was talking. And with DCS and Aero it is a game changer for sure, and in many cases with QP also.

Where I can read about that significant gain in DCS?

QP optics show that the pro quality is something better than higher resolution. I had G2 and was not happy about visuals.

Edited September 6, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[dburne]

Just now, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Where I can read about that significant gain in DCS?

 

DCS VR forums.

[dburne]

14 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Where I can read about that significant gain in DCS?

 

 

Also here:

https://github.com/mbucchia/Quad-Views-Foveated