Thursday, November 3rd 2016

Futuremark Announces VRMark, the Virtual Reality Benchmark

Futuremark, the Finnish software development company best known for its 3DMark benchmarking suite, has just announced the availability of another benchmark suite. Aptly named VRMark, this suite teste your system's ability to run VR games and experiences, since the performance required for VR is much higher than for typical PC games - just consider that the recommended frame-rate for an optimal VR experience stands at 90fps. Run VRMark to see if your PC has what it takes to deliver a great VR experience on the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. VRMark benchmark tests run on your monitor, no headset required. If your PC passes, it's ready for the two most popular VR systems available today.

The VRMark Orange Room benchmark shows the impressive level of detail that can be achieved on a PC that meets the recommended hardware requirements for the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. If your PC passes this test, it's ready for the two most popular VR systems available today.
You can run the Orange Room as a benchmark to measure performance objectively, or as an Experience, which lets you judge the rendering quality with your own eyes.


You can run the Orange Room benchmark and experience on your monitor in Desktop mode, no headset required, or on a connected headset in HMD mode. VRMark supports Windows 10 64-bit, Windows 8.1 64-bit, as well as Windows 7 with Service Pack 1 64-bit, and there are two versions of it available: a free edition, VRMark Basic Edition, which includes the Orange Room benchmark and its experience mode; and a $19.99 Advanced Edition, which additionally unlocks access to the Blue Room benchmark for high-performance PCs, shows more detailed results and hardware monitoring charts, allows the exploration of both the Orange and Blue rooms in Experience mode, and adds the ability to customize your runs. Click the below link to download the Free version.

DOWNLOAD: Futuremark VRMark v1.0.1227 (1007.3 MB)
Add your own comment

15 Comments on Futuremark Announces VRMark, the Virtual Reality Benchmark

#2
uuuaaaaaa
Time to bench! The thuban will hold back my card tho :/
Posted on Reply
#3
deu
Ran it through my VIVE. Visually I was kinda disapointed. I was maybe hoping for an experience beyond just following a fixed camera with dual view. Also there is no upscalling (might be in the advanced edition) But other than It gave me a avg. FPS im kinda disapointed :/ 3Dmark you can hire me to do my thesis on scalling of user experience in VR for you; its free but you are forced to create something amazing as a result! :D
Posted on Reply
#5
xkm1948
YAYYYY! Totally gonna try it tonight.
Posted on Reply
#6
john_
It crashes on my two main PCs. Pity.
Posted on Reply
#7
xkm1948
Advanced version costs 19.99($5 off on sale now). Too rich for me.
Posted on Reply
#9
kn00tcn
Recus said:
i7-2500k, GTX1080 - 6387, 138 FPS
i7- 6700, GTX1070 - 8031, 175 FPS
i7-5775C, GTX 1060 - 7867, 171 FPS
i74770k, GTX 1080 - 7578, 165.20 FPS

these numbers are so weird, lower clocked lower watt broadwell with a 1060 so close to a skylake 1070

actually that haswell user mentioned 60% gpu usage

oh there's a 6600k 1080 that has 212fps, that doesnt seem right unless overclocked

so i guess that orange room is way too light & the blue room is too demanding (48fps for that haswell user)
Posted on Reply
#10
ViperXTR
score is pretty CPU dependent it seems, my ol 3570K at 4Ghz ain't pushing my GTX 1070 fast enough (i can see small GPU usage but strangely modest CPU usage as well)
Posted on Reply
#11
TheHunter
kn00tcn said:
i74770k, GTX 1080 - 7578, 165.20 FPS

these numbers are so weird, lower clocked lower watt broadwell with a 1060 so close to a skylake 1070

actually that haswell user mentioned 60% gpu usage

oh there's a 6600k 1080 that has 212fps, that doesnt seem right unless overclocked

so i guess that orange room is way too light & the blue room is too demanding (48fps for that haswell user)
Yeah it seems to be very cpu/speed dependent..

Here is mine :)
http://www.3dmark.com/vrm/15828712

980Ti @ 1470Mhz, cpu 4770K @ 4.7Ghz




and default factory OC 1420mhz boost
http://www.3dmark.com/vrm/15833653
Posted on Reply
#12
lorraine walsh
I have 2 1080s in SLI and run the Blue Room at 70FPS now, what is this measuring? I remember back when NOTHING on the market could "pass" or run any 3D Mark Bench with even 10-20FPS. is this what they are returning to? Is this benchmark supposed to defeat even the best of hardware? If so, they need to stop marketing the software as 'are you ready for VR'?
Posted on Reply
#13
Tomorrow
Recus said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1306559
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4puyrg/gtx_1080_sandy_bridge_vs_skylake_tested/

Generally what i've found (i'm running 2500K+GTX1080 @1440p myself) is that @ 1080p CPU will start bottlenecking heavily because 1080p is not that GPU bound. Moving to 1440p things get more intresting. Basicly @ 1440p and old CPU such as 2500K would bottleneck only in the following scenarios (or combination of these):
Multiplayer (more players=higher cpu load)
SLI/CF users (heavy CPU overhead when running multiple cards)
Single player games with high CPU requirements. ARMA3 is prime example. GTA V to a lesser extent.

But heavily GPU bound singleplayer games when using a sinlge GPU @1440p do not really care that much about CPU generation. Assuming you already have overclocked quadcore you won't see great FPS increases.

Benchmarks are always more sensitive to every little thing in a system. Take memory speed for example. Buying higher Mhz RAM does not increase your FPS (unless you're already CPU bound) but it makes great deal of difference in benchmark scores.

That being said: nothing lasts forever. Eventually newer components will start showing enough of a gap in many different scenarios and so upgrading is still a thing. Next year i will finally replace my 2500K.
Posted on Reply
#14
lorraine walsh
Was considering this benchmark until I discovered it can't do mGPU. All VR engines are basically doing SFR so why can't they do simple mGPU? Pointless.
Posted on Reply
#15
kn00tcn
lorraine walsh said:
Was considering this benchmark until I discovered it can't do mGPU. All VR engines are basically doing SFR so why can't they do simple mGPU? Pointless.
what happened to amd's crossfire point in their liquidvr slides? i dont know if nvidia has mentioned sli

you cant use AFR due to increased latency, both nv & amd are claiming special reduced latency modes for vr, supposedly less latency than on a regular monitor

two 1080s is quite the power, that would be 20-40fps in your past hardware on 3dmark reference (i can relate, 4870x2 in 2008 running vantage at 1200p, actually your 1080s should be in 4k for a real test)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment