Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:: Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Name
Email
Subject
Message icon

Other options

Return to this topic
Don't use smileys

Verification:

Please leave this box empty:

Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Anonymousgg

- January 23, 2022, 14:14:58

Quote from: ocket8888 on January 20, 2022, 06:42:09
Bro, you are not gonna hit an fps that doesn't kill someone with nausea with just an M1 CPU trying to do dual 8k displays - you need a graphics card.

But even with another computer doing the graphics, you'd need to transfer 256 bits/color x 3 colors/pixel x 60 Hz framerate x 7680 pixels x 4320 pixels x 2 displays = roughly 3 terabits/second to do that at 60fps. No connection is that fast. Sure as s*** wireless isn't that fast.

This can't possibly be true.

I'm not sure how you get a whopping 768 bits of color information per pixel instead of like 36.

But regardless of the bandwidth requirements, foveated rendering would make it much easier, and there are other tricks to lower the performance needed.

Posted by aenews

- January 23, 2022, 10:28:27

Quote from: ocket8888 on January 20, 2022, 06:42:09
Bro, you are not gonna hit an fps that doesn't kill someone with nausea with just an M1 CPU trying to do dual 8k displays - you need a graphics card.

But even with another computer doing the graphics, you'd need to transfer 256 bits/color x 3 colors/pixel x 60 Hz framerate x 7680 pixels x 4320 pixels x 2 displays = roughly 3 terabits/second to do that at 60fps. No connection is that fast. Sure as s*** wireless isn't that fast.

This can't possibly be true.

With DSC or similar, it may actually be remotely possible. It also becomes more plausible with interim resolutions.

I think it is more likely that the individual resolution for each eye is akin to 4K, which would mean that total resolution is 5-8K in width with vertical resolution equivalent to an 8K display (e.g. 2160 x 2400 / Eye or up to something like 3456 x 3840 / Eye if we really reach 8K in width).

If it is actually at this latter level, it would be worth the price tag. If resolution were somehow even higher, that would be truly remarkable.

Posted by Galactic_Warlock

- January 22, 2022, 23:16:36

Apple is viable again. E cars and comfy VR/AR. Excellent.

Posted by Nyuumi

- January 20, 2022, 11:10:24

it will probably have foveated rendering to relieve it's graphical load.

Posted by ocket8888

- January 20, 2022, 06:42:09

Bro, you are not gonna hit an fps that doesn't kill someone with nausea with just an M1 CPU trying to do dual 8k displays - you need a graphics card.

But even with another computer doing the graphics, you'd need to transfer 256 bits/color x 3 colors/pixel x 60 Hz framerate x 7680 pixels x 4320 pixels x 2 displays = roughly 3 terabits/second to do that at 60fps. No connection is that fast. Sure as s*** wireless isn't that fast.

This can't possibly be true.

Posted by Redaktion

- January 18, 2022, 11:26:06

Apple's upcoming AR/VR headset will feature an M1 Pro SoC, dual 8K displays, and advanced audio. The headset is likely to be priced around the US$2,000 mark, according to known Apple watcher Mark Gurman. Gurman also notes in his latest newsletter that the Apple headset will focus on gaming, multimedia, and communications. He even predicts a few possible names for the device including Apple Vision, Apple Reality, and Apple Sight.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-AR-VR-headset-to-feature-dual-8K-displays-changeable-prescription-lenses-and-M1-Pro-SoC-with-fan-could-be-priced-on-the-lines-of-entry-level-MacBook-Pro-14.593361.0.html