1440p headset for 300-400

mspoweruser.com/lenovo-teases-release-date-for-their-cheap-windows-mixed-reality-headset/

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=zs_qbf4Nnzw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Would buy

If it is under 120hz then it can go home.

Looks the opposite of comfortable.
Also microsoft needs to get stoned for using the term "holographic" for something like this.

Join the future of gaming.

>lenovo

yeah, no

Are Vive/ORv2 slated for 120hz?

they already are at-least 90hz. I think they do 120.

Gr8 game.

This is the funniest webm I've seen all day.

Vive does 90 Hz

I'm happy with this

>there is even a single graphics card that exists that could render anything but low poly textureless indies hit at 1440p on two screens and a solid 90fps

it's not 1440p (2560x1440) it's 1440x1440.

and first of all, twice of 1440p is still less than half of 4k and it barely over 3k.

so

2560x1440 = 3,686,400

1440x1440 x 2 = 4,147,200

3880x1800 (3k) = 6,984,000

it's slightly more demanding than regular 1440p. I bet any 1070 or above class card could drive games at that resolution at 90hz if some settings were lowered

Foveated rendering.

Your eyes are shit anyways.

corrections:
3k is 3200x1800 = 5,760,000, Don't know why I fucked that up. And also I meant that 1440p is less than half of 4k so 2x1440p is still less than 4k

The fact of the matter is people have to accept that VR games will never look anywhere near as good or be as expansive as the latest games that are developed to run on one screen at 30-60fps

Or we all have to buy insane good hardware for there to even be a potential demand for VR games of the same scale as normal games

And everyone's a consolefag so that's not happening which is why everyone sees it as a gimmick

also need to take into account objects render differently for each eye for the 3d so itll be more demanding

nope

Hmmm...

>4k = 4 x 1080p

>1440p > 1080p

>twice of 1440p is still less than half of 4k
aka
>1440p x 2 < 4k / 2

>1080p x 2 = 4k / 2

HMMMMM

p x 2 < 4k / 2
>
p x 2 = 4k / 2
yup, totally right 1440p is about 1080px1.8

1080p x 2 > 1440p
4k/2 > 1440p

>latest games that are developed to run on one console* at 30-60fps, which can run on a "vr ready" pc at 3k 90 fps without breaking a sweat

But it has contradicting things

what game?

no it doesn't, you're assuming that 1440p = 1080p x 2. this is wrong

1080p x 1.8 = 1440p

1080p x 2 = 4k/2 > 1440p

4k is 4320x2160 you retard

As long I can play VR Kanojo, im good

3840x2160*

times have changed grandpa. resolution shorthand always refers to the 16:9 aspect ratio

My bad, I just forgot the width

Exactly so how can "twice of 1440p is still less than half of 4k" be true?

they are both 90 you retard

Do you all understand that human eyes have shit peripheral vision and all next gen headsets will have eyetracking and will only render full resolution in the center of your cone of vision? It will run better than fullHD runs now.

because it is

how dumb are you? where is the contradiction?

There are actually some decent chink versions on amazon and such for a similiar or cheaper price right now, anything osvr seems to be the way forward. Exclusionary and motion control gimmicks are slowing things down, but devs are starting to see what peoole want.

Still no games. Almost literally.

what's the fov though?

How can twice of 1080p be equal to half of 4k but twice of 1440p is less than half of 4k.

how can't it be? what is wrong with that? both of those are true. explain to me what is wrong with those statements both being true.

Their laptop displays are shit. I wouldn't think this is any better

because twice of 1080p is bigger than 1440p

Because 1440p is more than 1080p.

yes, but it is less than twice of 1080p

The post you're replying to is asking you how 2x 1440 is smaller than 2x 1080.

But he said twice of 1440p

you misread him, we're talking to how they relate to 4k

1080p x 2 = 4k/2
1080p x 1.8 = 1440p

1080p x 2 > 1080p x 1.8
4k/2 > 1440p

4k > 1440p x 2

get this through all of your thick skulls

So let's just get this straight.
>2560 x 1440 = 3686400
>3686400 x 2 = 7372800
>1920 x 1080 = 2073600
>2073600 x 2 = 4147200
>4147200 > 7372800
And somehow 7372800 is less than half of 4k.

I re-read the entire thread

the issue is that you never read me correcting myself hereand whenever I saw you say you were confused about "twice of 1440p is still less than half of 4k"

I thought you were confused about 1440p being less than half of 4k and 1440px2 being less than 4k

bottom line is thatis 100% verifiabley true and both of us have bad reading comprehension

>this webm

the future is now
youtube.com/watch?v=zs_qbf4Nnzw

i am And that was the response i was looking for.

Again i was simply replying to:
>and first of all, twice of 1440p is still less than half of 4k and it barely over 3k.

gotcha, I realize that now. Shouldn't have expected people to read every reply and assume they saw my correction