- Messages
- 697
- Reactions
- Points
- 63
I never said that.
As you may probably know, you are always CPU limited OR GPU limited. Never both at the same time. So, testing in VR, which increases the work on the GPU heavily (times 2), makes no sense if you wanna know what difference the CPU makes.
But, as I said, VaM is special. This is not your standard gaming-benchmark. You can easily provoke a CPU limit in every resolution, with every CPU, even in VR. Because of the physics calculation and the VaM engine.
Additionally, the VaM engine has a frame limit which was at 340 I think? So, testing in VR, with all the different resolutions the many headset provide, makes no sense cause it's not comparable anyway. Testing in 1080p, 1440p and/or 2160p is the best way cause everyone can relate to that. And even in 1080p you are (kind of) GPU and CPU limited. The 4090 was the first card reaching the engine limit and we were all like "what's going on here?".
If you wanna test in VR, do it. You can throw anything in here. Every benchmark is welcome. But for the best comparison use 1080p, that's the resolution we have the biggest set of data and you will be limited CPU and GPU wise anyway.
Of course we could all switch to 1440p for example but there's people in here still gaming in FHD. And, like I said, posting all different variations from their headsets plus maybe internal upscaling as well, this would be a total mess and we can't compare nothing really. And some people don't even game in VR.
Best way would be making a 1080p, 1440p and a 2160p run and if you own a headset bench that as well without up- or downscaling. So everyone can pick the data needed.
