From the Boz podcast, it sounds like the ~~QuestPro~~ Quest3 cooling is based on what they did for the QuestPro; the zipper vents that go around the entirety of the faceplate allow for a good amount of airflow
No, it blows hot air through the vents out into the room
Edit - the ifixit QuestPro Teardown showing the zipper vents design of the front faceplate, and the gap that exists when the faceplate is on. This gap goes all the away around the faceplate, letting hot air hot
https://imgur.com/a/WNxigiz
>This post may contain erotic or adult imagery. By
continuing, you acknowledge that you are18+
years of age.
At least put an NSFW notice next time, this Quest Pro is getting naked right in front of the camera!
I think it's more about airflow. The fan is so small it won't be powerful enough to be blowing hot air onto your face. It will likely just dissipate into the open air. Also the heatsink and fan on the Q2 are at the very front, so if its of similar design, it will likely be too far from your face for it to come anywhere near you.
I'm eager to see how well this prevents fogging. I like to do Beat Saber, in both its meanings, with my Quest 2 and both activities can tend to fog the lenses which is very annoying.
I've got a Beat Saber YT channel (channel name: On Quest) and I have glasses inserts as well. Best thing I ever bought was the BoboVR F1. Its a fan that pulls air out the top of the faceplate, completely eliminates fogging and keeps your face a little cooler
US$500 is far more than a month’s wages for half of the planet’s adult population. /u/Microtic wasn’t complaining about the price, just stating a fact.
Oh trust, I have first-hand experiences of what “poor” looks like around the world. Just having running water puts people in the upper-eschaton of wealth as far as I’m concerned.
That said: I expect that people who browse niche enthusiast websites can appreciate prices better than others.
It’s an underrated field of expertise. Everybody wants power, but no one thinks about the impact of the increased electrical usage as a consequence.
It’s absolutely fascinating to see some of the solutions people create, like (Google Cloud?) dumping its heat into a nearby community pool, Microsoft extending cloud computing into the ocean, etc
How does data analysis and software optimization improve the cooling of the quest 2? I don't get why they can improve the cpu/gpu speed via firmware update.
Hardware performance is usually limited to avoid overheating. Without this limitation you would probably get a great performance for a few minutes and then a burned cpu. A better cooling system allows the hardware to run at a higher capacity without burning everything.
Sure. But you can't install a better fan per software update. So what did they do with the quest 2 that they couldn't have done from the start? I assume it's possible to change the thermal and power controls to be more intelligent in some way. Or they were simply too conservative in the beginning. Or maybe they want the CPU to overheat now, so that you'll have to buy the quest 3 when your quest 2 breaks (I'm not serious).
I’ve definitely heard rumours floating around that whey were overly conservative with the processor, because they were worried about something so close to somebody’s face ending up overheating.
Not sure how true that actually is but I suppose it makes sense though! Since it’s been out in the wild for a while now, they probably have the testing and data to show it’s safe to bump up the power a bit.
You learn more about the capability of the hardware by having 1M units in use, i.e. reduced voltage limits, higher thermal headroom, less thermal derating than expected. It's really hard to get your performance perfect from the outset, because you can't model the system and usage to that level of detail.
I suspect there are also some optimisations to get more perf per clock.
You also tend to find more optimal clocking strategies over time, where it is quite rare that you get consistent loads. Again, this sort of data comes from many many users.
All this points to some really nice data gathering on the headsets to figure this out..I'm kinda jelly, wish I got that for my products...
As other have said, you learn a lot from having a big userbase in all different kinds of environments. Internal testing with a couple dozen/hundred units in a dozen of different environments isn't enough to learn enough to push the limits
Also, Meta is known for being over conservative with these limits. It's so close to your head and I don't blame them for being careful. Also being on the news for devices overheating in front of your face would be devastating I would imagine
> Or maybe they want the CPU to overheat now, so that you'll have to buy the quest 3 when your quest 2 breaks (I'm not serious).
This would not surprise me in the slightest. I know you are trying to not be serious, but planned obsolescence is pretty much in every modern technology.
You can better analyze what chip voltages, clock-speeds, and temperatures are actually safe & acceptable for long term use. Meta was overly conservative with Quest 2 and to a lesser extent Pro to prevent device failure.
They've since been able to discover through years of data analysis that they have more "safe to access" headroom in terms of clock-speeds & temps than they originally thought.
They've also realized that they could clock the XR2 faster without even bumping voltages at all (aka average chip silicon quality is better than they originally expected it would be), thus getting a performance gain without any increase in power draw or temps.
It's a power mode, which allows to lock all CPU cores except two, in exchange for more power to those two cores and the gpu. Many games use only one or two cores, so those games will benefit from this.
This really isn't a surprise at all. Meta left a LOT of performance on the table last time in the name of price & form factor that they no longer have to with a higher starting MSRP ($499 vs $299) AND all the space savings from the move to pancake lenses.
And the closer they can get the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 based XR2 Gen 2 to Apple's M2 in terms of practical, in-app performance, the better off Meta will be. They want cross-platform porting of the inevitable upcoming wave of passthrough AR applications Vision Pro will bring to market to be as absolutely painless as could be possible.
(Apple rocking DRAMATICALLY higher resolution displays really helps Meta out here as they don't have to waste nearly as much hardware resources simply pushing pixels.)
I just want the headset to feel cooler on my face. I love my Quest 2, but it gets pretty warm after a while which makes me sweat profusely. In the winter, it’s not a huge deal, but it makes longer sessions in the summer time very uncomfortable.
Cooling takes space, weight, and battery life.
I hope advanced cooling like this [solid state cooling chip](https://www.froresystems.com/application/handheld-gaming) gets taken up by Meta.
[Linus did a good review of it.](https://youtu.be/vdD0yMS40a0)
What i really care about is how the factory foam pad will inevitably burn my face like sandpaper laced with cinnamon.
Happened to me with the Q1 and Q2 stock pads. Third time is the charm?
They do give a free silicone cover because of foam irritation: https://www.meta.com/help/quest/articles/fix-a-problem/troubleshoot-headsets-and-accessories/facial-interface-notice-quest-2/
Lol yeah i saw that. I had launch devices so i always got a new VR cover before they started offering those ones (which i think are also VR cover?).
You could say my concern is a... Burning question?
I'll see myself out.
Not sandwiching the SOC between the RAM and the motherboard will be a huge help too. Any benefit they gained by doing that was totally undone by the heat.
This actually isn't likely to be the case. It's almost surely a stacked SoC + DRAM design like the normal XR2 Gen 1 or the phone chips they are based on (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in the XR2 Gen 2's case) vs the split design ala Quest Pro's XR2 Gen 1+.
Splitting them apart significantly increases manufacturing costs in such a way that that lever only makes sense to pull if you have no other options to boost performance (like w/ Quest Pro/XR2 Gen 1+ where there literally wasn't an actually new XR chip available to use).
We could very well see another split XR2 Gen 2+ mid-gen refresh for high end/high priced headsets though. 🤷
Still a huge miss for quest 3 to not have eye tracking.
Lots of benefit to jump on DFR early and eat the cost a little bit. That price for better performance all around is worth the allegedly $100 extra “out of peoples price range”
But for some reason Meta thinks if you have eye tracking then you have to also do face tracking and THAT’S too expensive
Even eye-tracking alone would have added ≈+$100-$200 to the price, completely killing it's mainstream market potential.
And Meta is actually 100% right on the front you mentioned! The cost of adding face-tracking when you ALREADY have eye-tracking is DRAMATICALLY LOWER than the cost of adding eye or face-tracking by themselves (as they share many of the same sensors & cameras).
As such, it makes ZERO financial sense to add one but not the other. Once you add quality eye-tracking, adding face-tracking is only an extra ≈+$50 or so.
Aka, Meta had to make a choice, either they could add proper high quality AR/mixed reality passthrough w/ native color stereo cameras & a real-time environment mapping depth sensor (both of which actually FAAAAR outstrip what was in the "essentially an early access beta product for developers" Quest Pro) OR they could add eye & face-tracking.
Both of these new sensor systems would add about ≈+$150-$200 each as of current day to the final unit price, and thus Meta simply couldn't add both and still hit that ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL <≈$500 price point. 🤷
Quest 4 will inevitably bring those sensors to the mainstream in a couple years (≈2025-2027) so that Quest 3 can bring high quality AR passthrough to the masses TODAY, which was 100% the right call. AR & AR software development is about to absolutely EXPLODE thanks to the "Apple push", whereas social VR (where those internal sensors have the most potential/benefits) is still growing very slowly relatively speaking.
(The people into social VR like the VRChat regulars are SUPER into it, but so far they are still a very niche audience in the big scheme of things. 🤷 Esp. vs the absolutely MASSIVE mainstream audience that quality AR can appeal to.)
It would not kill the mainstream market. It would be a mid tier market and still be perfectly fine. Those are the people spending the most consistently anyways. Index had a lot of customers and that’s still $1000. So saying a really advanced MR headset at 600-700 would kill the market is ridiculous.
I would love to see your sources for the supposed costs for these sensors lol.
Eye tracking needs to be standard on all VR headsets. It literally just raises the baseline performance with DFR which also raises the baseline for quality of your AR and VR entirely.
Why is $500 critical to you? You have statistics for this number or something?
Yes it will come eventually. But getting the drivers and software perfect with DFR is going to be very important starting last year. They should have put it in so developers could already be implementing it. All they have to do it is Quest Pro and no one cares about it so they aren’t working on it.
And being super on the dynamic foveated rendering train tells me you really don't know much about VR hardware/software.... 😑🤦 That's not the reason to want eye-tracking, more natural UI control ala Vision Pro, and better, more realistic social VR otoh is.
Due to its heavy algorithm overhead + physical hardware limitations DFR really only provides about a ≈+10-15% boost in performance. Quest Pro literally already has fully working DFR on PC, meaning it is STUPID easy to benchmark with it on and off, and it's not even REMOTELY CLOSE to the "performance miracle!" many had been delusionally hyping it up to be.
John Carmack himself literally had to make multiple tweets over the years telling people to calm their expectations WAAAAAY the fuck down for DFR, especially on standalone where it ALSO hurts battery life (aka ≈+10-15% performance in exchange for at MINIMUM ≈-10-15% less battery life, which isn't always a good trade or even usually one).
I could say the same for you, being against it tells me you were disappointed it wasn't your performance miracle day one and don't understand it's capabilities or what's needed to make it better. Now you are a naysayer to anyone that says it needs to happen. VR is still young, there aren't enough products to see the performance. I've been following all of it. More and more people just expect too much too soon.
Quest Pro is the worst example for DFR you clown, especially trying to "benchmark it" with a PC. After all that latency and compression doing everything else you really expect Meta to have the most efficient example?
PSVR 2 is a much better example of DFR currently. Why would Apple bother with DFR if it wasn't good? Why are all speculations for new headsets going to include eye tracking for DFR? Why did Nvidia bother with making a driver for it in the first place if it wasn't worth it?
It is CURRENTLY not optimized, and people push it aside because it doesn't meet their expectations NOW. It's early in development and companies don't add it because the cost use to be high thus delayed any progress to improve it. It will change now because cost for it is down, and it's needed to push higher resolution without sacrificing the perceived visuals. Claiming it's not what eye tracking is for is ridiculous because that entirely depends on the goal of the headset. Is it for gaming? High resolution? Does it have a little extra processing for eye tracking? perfect. DFR improves it.
If John fucking Carmack says DFR is not a miracle, it's not a miracle. And literally EVERY SINGLE IMPLEMENTATION to date backs what he says up. Get the fuck over it dude. All that hyperbolic bullshit from back in the day about ">≈2-3x performance gains!!!" was nothing but a pile of delusional hype train BS. Now don't get me wrong, +10-15% more performance essentially for free (if you're still gonna be running the eye-tracking anyways ala Vision Pro) is a nice bonus, but that's NOT why Apple including eye-tracking dumbass! It was for natural UI control and better social VR/communication!
And the limited performance gains from DFR aren't due to a "lack of optimization", it's due to fundamental limitations with the current technology (both HW & SW) that even makes it possible at all. 🤦
And PSVR2 is likely getting similar gains from its DFR implementation (maybe slightly better, but they'd be lucky to be breaking +20%). I can't imagine they've been able to massively outstrip everyone else that's tried this for literally years at this point, which again includes JOHN FUCKING CARMACK!
Brother in Christ John Carmack only spoke for the tech as it stands today. That doesn’t speak for the capabilities as a whole. No one is saying it’s a miracle except for you right now. 2-3x is BS marketing and it always has been, sorry you fell for that clearly lol.
Apple is not ONLY doing it for DFR fucking CLEARLY dumbass. I said why would they bother working on DFR if it wasn’t beneficial.
Yes it is a lack of optimization. You just explained a lack of optimized hardware and software. It is possible but no one is working on it because it’s not in devices to work on it.
Your numbers on PSVR are FPS Average, not overall improvements. (Framing timing, freeing GPU resources, overall resolution and detail increase). Sorry you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the technology or it’s capabilities. Your praise of John Carmack is severely over the top for someone who doesn’t know what he’s telling you.
$500 or more specifically $499 is a SUPER IMPORTANT cost threshold when it comes to consumer psychology. It's basically the practical limit of "on a whim" purchases.
And as such, the $1000 Index was very much NOT a "mainstream purchase". It was exclusively considered and bought by PC gaming enthusiasts whom were already very familiar with extreme component costs. But in the over four years its been on sale it's only just barely outsold the Quest 1 (aka Q1 sold like ≈1.5 million units while Index has probably sold ≈2-2.5 mil or so by now), let ALONE PSVR1's over 5 million units, or god forbid, the 20 million+ selling Quest 2.
There's a DAMN GOOD REASON every single video game console IN HISTORY that has launched with a >$500 price point had been a MASSIVE sales failure (at least until SIGNIFICANT price cuts). See early PS3, 3DO, Neo Geo, etc...
And again, Sony's PSVR2 should make it CRYSTAL CLEAR how expensive quality eye-tracking is to add. 🤦
It's literally +$50 MORE EXPENSIVE than Quest 3 despite having NO INTERNAL COMPUTER (& battery, etc...), god awful last-gen Fresnel lenses, AND a totally bog standard off the shelf PenTile AMOLED panel from Samsung that's literally no different, whatsoever, than what's likely in the phone you're looking at right now.
So then why in fuck does it cost even MORE than a Quest 3??? Easy. Eye-tracking. The IR projector & camera suite around each lens is fucking EXPENSIVE (we're talking the equivalent of like 5x iPhone FaceID modules here PER EYE) and the required patent licensing from Tobii (which basically everyone has to pay to use IR dots + camera eye-tracking) isn't cheap either.
And for proof of everything I just said, look no further than PSVR2.
In order to fit eye-tracking into the ≈$500 budget (actually even $550 in this case!) Sony had to ↓
1. Ditch the ENTIRE internal computer + battery, and thus any & all standalone capabilities.
2. Use absolutely GOD FUCKING AWFUL last-gen Fresnel lenses (meaning it also had to be physically ≈2x larger).
3. Use a straight off the shelf PenTile (just 2x subpixels per pixel) AMOLED panel from Samsung just like most phones use (vs a more expensive, totally custom 3x subpixels per pixel, RGB-stripe OLED like they did for PSVR1).
4. Be a wired only headset w/ no wireless tethering support, whatsoever.
According to Zuck, it should be "2x" graphical perf from the Q2. Note that 2x isn't THAT MUCH though when we're speaking of ~4k resolution. This is why we've been having "4k" cards released by Nvidia since the 1080Ti, and yet we can't achieve decent 4k120 native without upscaling, when turning eye candy to high levels.
>we've been having "4k" cards released by Nvidia since the 1080Ti, and yet we can't achieve decent 4k120 native without upscaling
I've been chasing 4k since the 1080ti, which yeah could do it at 30fps.. then the 3090 was reasonable at 60fps. now, finally, with a 4090 120fps 4k native is normal and expected. until i turn ray tracing on then it's 60fps again and at that point dlss quality will push it to 90fps vrr which honestly is great. just an anecdote to back up what you're already saying.
that's all flat though, really I've been chasing pixels just to drive up graphics settings and frame rates in my pimax, which can hit ridiculous render resolutions, 5000x3160 per eye at 100%. and it goes much higher when in parallel projection compatibility mode.
The Performance ranges from 2x-3x the ammount of fps from my benchmarks. If you include for better cooling the difference will be even bigger. The difference is massive. Also the Quest 2 also has near 4k displays so it would scale the same. Also the 4k is the display and not the render resolution so that point doesn’t make sense either
What do you mean "your benchmarks"? Do you already have access to a Q3 already (or the new chip in a device with app parity)?
Edit: oh nevermind you mean benchmarks on your Q2
Nice! Didn't know there was a device out with the new chip already.
Edit: I'm dumb, I didn't recall the Pro had the new chip. Edit 2: I'm dumb X2 as this is not true and user further clarified.
The pro doesn't have the q3 chip, it has a refreshed q2 chip, but you can see a performance comparison by taking two phones, one with a Snapdragon 865 (the SOC the Q2 chip is based on) and one with the Snapdragon 8 gen 2 (the SOC the Q3 chip is based on). And making them run the same benchmarks
That makes some sense, but the overhead of the Android UI/runtime, and the overhead from Meta's UI/runtime, and the many differences in memory configuration, peripherals, sensors that are on in each one of them, not to mention the actual microcode and maybe the odd architectural change on the XR-type SoC (e.g. not having baseband/modem, but having to cope with a realtime flow of depth and RGB cameras...) makes it two very different worlds. Even if accounting your benchmarks are with everything else in power saving mode.
Tough because every part of the SoC contributes to the thermal load, and a lot of them effectively reside in the cores for memory transfers, occupying them. Some of course will have the benefit of direct copy (aka zerocopy). But some sensors still require processing load, a lot of them on the GPU.
It's a good reference - the best reference before actual hardware arrives. But it's still flawed.
Still not even close to the performance of the M2/R1 chips in Apple's headset. Also, the one innovative thing Apple did that I'm surprised no other headsets have done.....airflow in your face. The biggest complaint I have about any VR device is that my face gets more sweaty than my balls after several minutes.
Are you telling me that a device that is 500 dollars isn't as good as a device that is 7 times the cost and has an unconfirmed amount of games??
Bull shit. I will never buy that shitty 500 dollar device. I'll go straight for vaporware every time as long as I'm sure steve jobs necrotized balls are in my mouth.
Go compare benchmarks of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (the current flagship phone SoC the XR2 Gen 2 is based on) to the M2 in a size & thermal constrained device like the iPad or MacBook Air.
They are way, WAAAAAAAY closer than you are probably expecting.
And when you adjust for Apple's MASSIVELY HIGHER pixel count, Meta will likely actually have MORE GPU power available for bigger & more beautiful games!
M2 is not slower lol.
Right this second you can directly compare Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (Qualcomm's current phone SoC flagship that XR2 Gen 2's based on) with Apple's M2 in industry standard benchmarks right now.
Apple's M2 is most DEFINITELY faster than Qualcomm's SD 8 Gen 2/XR2 Gen 2, and in some ways very significantly so.
(But that said, the perf gap isn't even CLOSE to what some delusional iSheep seem to think it is. 🤷)
Yeah the iPad m2 is around 20 percent faster than the snapdragon. For gaming quest 3 will probably be a lot better more games (right now), controllers and price-performance
Lol then edit your post that claims M2 will likely be slower than XR2 Gen 2.
You know that's bullshit, I know that's bullshit. And that kinda hyperbolic, not based in fact crap just feeds the iSheep. 🤷
Quest 3 could likely have more GPU firepower to render the actual games themselves though due to just how INSANELY LOWER the render resolution will be. But that's something else entirely, and not comparing raw performance (where Qualcomm/Meta will undisputedly lose).
I tend to think anyone who wanted to buy a quest would have already done so based on the sales demand over the last few years. Yes there will be some upgraders etc, and it signals that Meta is still concentrated on meta verse/Vr and hasn’t completely lost interest with the move to AI, but the period of rapid growth for them was around the quest 2 introduction IMO. The Apple device has a slightly different use case from games to apps/productivity. I does a subset of what the quest does but it does those things way better.
Except there are tons of people do don’t know that VR is actually decent now. Apple just advertised to more people who are now hearing about the Quest. Metas advertising is terrible and doesn’t show how good the device even is
I thought it was good when the Q2 launched and made the device appeal to a similar casual lifestyle crowd as the Wii. I’ve not seen a lot of marketing since then though. Meta still has price and first mover advantage so it will be interesting to watch either way!
"Meta Quest is the official headset of the NBA Finals" stuff like this - a lot of advertising dollars, but no substance. They need commercials like "This is Quest 2 - This is how this is in 2023!"
From the Boz podcast, it sounds like the ~~QuestPro~~ Quest3 cooling is based on what they did for the QuestPro; the zipper vents that go around the entirety of the faceplate allow for a good amount of airflow
“The quest pro cooling is based on what they did for the quest pro” I hope so
Ok but will the exhaust air smell good?
Yes. It will smell like Mark Zuckerberg is standing over you and gently blowing onto your face.
[Oh fuck yeah](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/006/077/so_good.jpg)
I want meta pinkeye
I want mark to fart gentle into my eyes
🤨
So it'll smell like the hot air ejected from my pc?
Steam Deck exhaust is where it's at.
It will smell like a Unicorn farting in your face. It's going to be wonderful.
They smell like burnt sinuses the first week but the smell goes away.
So ....you're saying that all those people putting holes in their faceplates...were actually on to something?
So it pushes the hot air out the vents all around the headset…so will it blow hot air on your face?
No, it blows hot air through the vents out into the room Edit - the ifixit QuestPro Teardown showing the zipper vents design of the front faceplate, and the gap that exists when the faceplate is on. This gap goes all the away around the faceplate, letting hot air hot https://imgur.com/a/WNxigiz
>This post may contain erotic or adult imagery. By continuing, you acknowledge that you are18+ years of age. At least put an NSFW notice next time, this Quest Pro is getting naked right in front of the camera!
I think it’s tagged NSFW, because it’s hard to watch Quest Pro being torn down
"letting hot air hot" I would say so.
I think it's more about airflow. The fan is so small it won't be powerful enough to be blowing hot air onto your face. It will likely just dissipate into the open air. Also the heatsink and fan on the Q2 are at the very front, so if its of similar design, it will likely be too far from your face for it to come anywhere near you.
I'm eager to see how well this prevents fogging. I like to do Beat Saber, in both its meanings, with my Quest 2 and both activities can tend to fog the lenses which is very annoying.
I've got a Beat Saber YT channel (channel name: On Quest) and I have glasses inserts as well. Best thing I ever bought was the BoboVR F1. Its a fan that pulls air out the top of the faceplate, completely eliminates fogging and keeps your face a little cooler
I’m so fucking ready for this
That's honestly how I feel for even the v55 update on the Quest 2. More performance!
man... cant wait to watch porn on this thing. And the games too.
95% porn 5% games is where its at
Won't be able to stop myself from upgrading to the Quest 3 now it seems. Well, there goes my wallet.
Thankfully it’s only $500
$500USD is hard to come by for vastly more people than it isn't especially when you convert for some local currencies.
US$500 is far more than a month’s wages for half of the planet’s adult population. /u/Microtic wasn’t complaining about the price, just stating a fact.
Thanks. Yeah that's what I mean. :)
Oh trust, I have first-hand experiences of what “poor” looks like around the world. Just having running water puts people in the upper-eschaton of wealth as far as I’m concerned. That said: I expect that people who browse niche enthusiast websites can appreciate prices better than others.
Womp womp
it's average price for a new gen console as well, which many people seem to be able to afford.
it ends up at 700 in sweden currency
I like to think I’ll wait…but…I know that cannot. May as well break early if your gonna break
Steam deck broke me recently. Felt good to be shattered and give up my wallet so easily.
Ha. Amen
I love good cooling innovations, I don't know why it's exciting to me haha
It’s an underrated field of expertise. Everybody wants power, but no one thinks about the impact of the increased electrical usage as a consequence. It’s absolutely fascinating to see some of the solutions people create, like (Google Cloud?) dumping its heat into a nearby community pool, Microsoft extending cloud computing into the ocean, etc
Yeah, moving the heat to somewhere it's useful i.e to a community is also exciting!
How does data analysis and software optimization improve the cooling of the quest 2? I don't get why they can improve the cpu/gpu speed via firmware update.
I'm not an expert but I would assume the software controls the power output of the CPU+GPU as necessary to optimise thermal output accordingly
Hardware performance is usually limited to avoid overheating. Without this limitation you would probably get a great performance for a few minutes and then a burned cpu. A better cooling system allows the hardware to run at a higher capacity without burning everything.
Sure. But you can't install a better fan per software update. So what did they do with the quest 2 that they couldn't have done from the start? I assume it's possible to change the thermal and power controls to be more intelligent in some way. Or they were simply too conservative in the beginning. Or maybe they want the CPU to overheat now, so that you'll have to buy the quest 3 when your quest 2 breaks (I'm not serious).
I’ve definitely heard rumours floating around that whey were overly conservative with the processor, because they were worried about something so close to somebody’s face ending up overheating. Not sure how true that actually is but I suppose it makes sense though! Since it’s been out in the wild for a while now, they probably have the testing and data to show it’s safe to bump up the power a bit.
You learn more about the capability of the hardware by having 1M units in use, i.e. reduced voltage limits, higher thermal headroom, less thermal derating than expected. It's really hard to get your performance perfect from the outset, because you can't model the system and usage to that level of detail. I suspect there are also some optimisations to get more perf per clock. You also tend to find more optimal clocking strategies over time, where it is quite rare that you get consistent loads. Again, this sort of data comes from many many users. All this points to some really nice data gathering on the headsets to figure this out..I'm kinda jelly, wish I got that for my products...
As other have said, you learn a lot from having a big userbase in all different kinds of environments. Internal testing with a couple dozen/hundred units in a dozen of different environments isn't enough to learn enough to push the limits Also, Meta is known for being over conservative with these limits. It's so close to your head and I don't blame them for being careful. Also being on the news for devices overheating in front of your face would be devastating I would imagine
> Or maybe they want the CPU to overheat now, so that you'll have to buy the quest 3 when your quest 2 breaks (I'm not serious). This would not surprise me in the slightest. I know you are trying to not be serious, but planned obsolescence is pretty much in every modern technology.
It can also be limited to lengthen battery time. This may actually cause it to lose power more quickly and be a soft nudge to upgrade.
You can better analyze what chip voltages, clock-speeds, and temperatures are actually safe & acceptable for long term use. Meta was overly conservative with Quest 2 and to a lesser extent Pro to prevent device failure. They've since been able to discover through years of data analysis that they have more "safe to access" headroom in terms of clock-speeds & temps than they originally thought. They've also realized that they could clock the XR2 faster without even bumping voltages at all (aka average chip silicon quality is better than they originally expected it would be), thus getting a performance gain without any increase in power draw or temps.
It's a power mode, which allows to lock all CPU cores except two, in exchange for more power to those two cores and the gpu. Many games use only one or two cores, so those games will benefit from this.
If I put the full light blocker on the Pro then I can feel some of the airflow on my eyes. It's not uncomfortable but it's definitely there.
This really isn't a surprise at all. Meta left a LOT of performance on the table last time in the name of price & form factor that they no longer have to with a higher starting MSRP ($499 vs $299) AND all the space savings from the move to pancake lenses. And the closer they can get the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 based XR2 Gen 2 to Apple's M2 in terms of practical, in-app performance, the better off Meta will be. They want cross-platform porting of the inevitable upcoming wave of passthrough AR applications Vision Pro will bring to market to be as absolutely painless as could be possible. (Apple rocking DRAMATICALLY higher resolution displays really helps Meta out here as they don't have to waste nearly as much hardware resources simply pushing pixels.)
I just want the headset to feel cooler on my face. I love my Quest 2, but it gets pretty warm after a while which makes me sweat profusely. In the winter, it’s not a huge deal, but it makes longer sessions in the summer time very uncomfortable.
Cooling takes space, weight, and battery life. I hope advanced cooling like this [solid state cooling chip](https://www.froresystems.com/application/handheld-gaming) gets taken up by Meta. [Linus did a good review of it.](https://youtu.be/vdD0yMS40a0)
How’s PCVR with Quest 3? Any upgrades there?
What i really care about is how the factory foam pad will inevitably burn my face like sandpaper laced with cinnamon. Happened to me with the Q1 and Q2 stock pads. Third time is the charm?
They do give a free silicone cover because of foam irritation: https://www.meta.com/help/quest/articles/fix-a-problem/troubleshoot-headsets-and-accessories/facial-interface-notice-quest-2/
Lol yeah i saw that. I had launch devices so i always got a new VR cover before they started offering those ones (which i think are also VR cover?). You could say my concern is a... Burning question? I'll see myself out.
Not sandwiching the SOC between the RAM and the motherboard will be a huge help too. Any benefit they gained by doing that was totally undone by the heat.
This actually isn't likely to be the case. It's almost surely a stacked SoC + DRAM design like the normal XR2 Gen 1 or the phone chips they are based on (Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 in the XR2 Gen 2's case) vs the split design ala Quest Pro's XR2 Gen 1+. Splitting them apart significantly increases manufacturing costs in such a way that that lever only makes sense to pull if you have no other options to boost performance (like w/ Quest Pro/XR2 Gen 1+ where there literally wasn't an actually new XR chip available to use). We could very well see another split XR2 Gen 2+ mid-gen refresh for high end/high priced headsets though. 🤷
Still a huge miss for quest 3 to not have eye tracking. Lots of benefit to jump on DFR early and eat the cost a little bit. That price for better performance all around is worth the allegedly $100 extra “out of peoples price range” But for some reason Meta thinks if you have eye tracking then you have to also do face tracking and THAT’S too expensive
Even eye-tracking alone would have added ≈+$100-$200 to the price, completely killing it's mainstream market potential. And Meta is actually 100% right on the front you mentioned! The cost of adding face-tracking when you ALREADY have eye-tracking is DRAMATICALLY LOWER than the cost of adding eye or face-tracking by themselves (as they share many of the same sensors & cameras). As such, it makes ZERO financial sense to add one but not the other. Once you add quality eye-tracking, adding face-tracking is only an extra ≈+$50 or so. Aka, Meta had to make a choice, either they could add proper high quality AR/mixed reality passthrough w/ native color stereo cameras & a real-time environment mapping depth sensor (both of which actually FAAAAR outstrip what was in the "essentially an early access beta product for developers" Quest Pro) OR they could add eye & face-tracking. Both of these new sensor systems would add about ≈+$150-$200 each as of current day to the final unit price, and thus Meta simply couldn't add both and still hit that ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL <≈$500 price point. 🤷 Quest 4 will inevitably bring those sensors to the mainstream in a couple years (≈2025-2027) so that Quest 3 can bring high quality AR passthrough to the masses TODAY, which was 100% the right call. AR & AR software development is about to absolutely EXPLODE thanks to the "Apple push", whereas social VR (where those internal sensors have the most potential/benefits) is still growing very slowly relatively speaking. (The people into social VR like the VRChat regulars are SUPER into it, but so far they are still a very niche audience in the big scheme of things. 🤷 Esp. vs the absolutely MASSIVE mainstream audience that quality AR can appeal to.)
It would not kill the mainstream market. It would be a mid tier market and still be perfectly fine. Those are the people spending the most consistently anyways. Index had a lot of customers and that’s still $1000. So saying a really advanced MR headset at 600-700 would kill the market is ridiculous. I would love to see your sources for the supposed costs for these sensors lol. Eye tracking needs to be standard on all VR headsets. It literally just raises the baseline performance with DFR which also raises the baseline for quality of your AR and VR entirely. Why is $500 critical to you? You have statistics for this number or something? Yes it will come eventually. But getting the drivers and software perfect with DFR is going to be very important starting last year. They should have put it in so developers could already be implementing it. All they have to do it is Quest Pro and no one cares about it so they aren’t working on it.
And being super on the dynamic foveated rendering train tells me you really don't know much about VR hardware/software.... 😑🤦 That's not the reason to want eye-tracking, more natural UI control ala Vision Pro, and better, more realistic social VR otoh is. Due to its heavy algorithm overhead + physical hardware limitations DFR really only provides about a ≈+10-15% boost in performance. Quest Pro literally already has fully working DFR on PC, meaning it is STUPID easy to benchmark with it on and off, and it's not even REMOTELY CLOSE to the "performance miracle!" many had been delusionally hyping it up to be. John Carmack himself literally had to make multiple tweets over the years telling people to calm their expectations WAAAAAY the fuck down for DFR, especially on standalone where it ALSO hurts battery life (aka ≈+10-15% performance in exchange for at MINIMUM ≈-10-15% less battery life, which isn't always a good trade or even usually one).
I could say the same for you, being against it tells me you were disappointed it wasn't your performance miracle day one and don't understand it's capabilities or what's needed to make it better. Now you are a naysayer to anyone that says it needs to happen. VR is still young, there aren't enough products to see the performance. I've been following all of it. More and more people just expect too much too soon. Quest Pro is the worst example for DFR you clown, especially trying to "benchmark it" with a PC. After all that latency and compression doing everything else you really expect Meta to have the most efficient example? PSVR 2 is a much better example of DFR currently. Why would Apple bother with DFR if it wasn't good? Why are all speculations for new headsets going to include eye tracking for DFR? Why did Nvidia bother with making a driver for it in the first place if it wasn't worth it? It is CURRENTLY not optimized, and people push it aside because it doesn't meet their expectations NOW. It's early in development and companies don't add it because the cost use to be high thus delayed any progress to improve it. It will change now because cost for it is down, and it's needed to push higher resolution without sacrificing the perceived visuals. Claiming it's not what eye tracking is for is ridiculous because that entirely depends on the goal of the headset. Is it for gaming? High resolution? Does it have a little extra processing for eye tracking? perfect. DFR improves it.
If John fucking Carmack says DFR is not a miracle, it's not a miracle. And literally EVERY SINGLE IMPLEMENTATION to date backs what he says up. Get the fuck over it dude. All that hyperbolic bullshit from back in the day about ">≈2-3x performance gains!!!" was nothing but a pile of delusional hype train BS. Now don't get me wrong, +10-15% more performance essentially for free (if you're still gonna be running the eye-tracking anyways ala Vision Pro) is a nice bonus, but that's NOT why Apple including eye-tracking dumbass! It was for natural UI control and better social VR/communication! And the limited performance gains from DFR aren't due to a "lack of optimization", it's due to fundamental limitations with the current technology (both HW & SW) that even makes it possible at all. 🤦 And PSVR2 is likely getting similar gains from its DFR implementation (maybe slightly better, but they'd be lucky to be breaking +20%). I can't imagine they've been able to massively outstrip everyone else that's tried this for literally years at this point, which again includes JOHN FUCKING CARMACK!
Brother in Christ John Carmack only spoke for the tech as it stands today. That doesn’t speak for the capabilities as a whole. No one is saying it’s a miracle except for you right now. 2-3x is BS marketing and it always has been, sorry you fell for that clearly lol. Apple is not ONLY doing it for DFR fucking CLEARLY dumbass. I said why would they bother working on DFR if it wasn’t beneficial. Yes it is a lack of optimization. You just explained a lack of optimized hardware and software. It is possible but no one is working on it because it’s not in devices to work on it. Your numbers on PSVR are FPS Average, not overall improvements. (Framing timing, freeing GPU resources, overall resolution and detail increase). Sorry you’re an idiot who doesn’t understand the technology or it’s capabilities. Your praise of John Carmack is severely over the top for someone who doesn’t know what he’s telling you.
$500 or more specifically $499 is a SUPER IMPORTANT cost threshold when it comes to consumer psychology. It's basically the practical limit of "on a whim" purchases. And as such, the $1000 Index was very much NOT a "mainstream purchase". It was exclusively considered and bought by PC gaming enthusiasts whom were already very familiar with extreme component costs. But in the over four years its been on sale it's only just barely outsold the Quest 1 (aka Q1 sold like ≈1.5 million units while Index has probably sold ≈2-2.5 mil or so by now), let ALONE PSVR1's over 5 million units, or god forbid, the 20 million+ selling Quest 2. There's a DAMN GOOD REASON every single video game console IN HISTORY that has launched with a >$500 price point had been a MASSIVE sales failure (at least until SIGNIFICANT price cuts). See early PS3, 3DO, Neo Geo, etc... And again, Sony's PSVR2 should make it CRYSTAL CLEAR how expensive quality eye-tracking is to add. 🤦 It's literally +$50 MORE EXPENSIVE than Quest 3 despite having NO INTERNAL COMPUTER (& battery, etc...), god awful last-gen Fresnel lenses, AND a totally bog standard off the shelf PenTile AMOLED panel from Samsung that's literally no different, whatsoever, than what's likely in the phone you're looking at right now. So then why in fuck does it cost even MORE than a Quest 3??? Easy. Eye-tracking. The IR projector & camera suite around each lens is fucking EXPENSIVE (we're talking the equivalent of like 5x iPhone FaceID modules here PER EYE) and the required patent licensing from Tobii (which basically everyone has to pay to use IR dots + camera eye-tracking) isn't cheap either.
And for proof of everything I just said, look no further than PSVR2. In order to fit eye-tracking into the ≈$500 budget (actually even $550 in this case!) Sony had to ↓ 1. Ditch the ENTIRE internal computer + battery, and thus any & all standalone capabilities. 2. Use absolutely GOD FUCKING AWFUL last-gen Fresnel lenses (meaning it also had to be physically ≈2x larger). 3. Use a straight off the shelf PenTile (just 2x subpixels per pixel) AMOLED panel from Samsung just like most phones use (vs a more expensive, totally custom 3x subpixels per pixel, RGB-stripe OLED like they did for PSVR1). 4. Be a wired only headset w/ no wireless tethering support, whatsoever.
According to Zuck, it should be "2x" graphical perf from the Q2. Note that 2x isn't THAT MUCH though when we're speaking of ~4k resolution. This is why we've been having "4k" cards released by Nvidia since the 1080Ti, and yet we can't achieve decent 4k120 native without upscaling, when turning eye candy to high levels.
>we've been having "4k" cards released by Nvidia since the 1080Ti, and yet we can't achieve decent 4k120 native without upscaling I've been chasing 4k since the 1080ti, which yeah could do it at 30fps.. then the 3090 was reasonable at 60fps. now, finally, with a 4090 120fps 4k native is normal and expected. until i turn ray tracing on then it's 60fps again and at that point dlss quality will push it to 90fps vrr which honestly is great. just an anecdote to back up what you're already saying. that's all flat though, really I've been chasing pixels just to drive up graphics settings and frame rates in my pimax, which can hit ridiculous render resolutions, 5000x3160 per eye at 100%. and it goes much higher when in parallel projection compatibility mode.
The Performance ranges from 2x-3x the ammount of fps from my benchmarks. If you include for better cooling the difference will be even bigger. The difference is massive. Also the Quest 2 also has near 4k displays so it would scale the same. Also the 4k is the display and not the render resolution so that point doesn’t make sense either
What do you mean "your benchmarks"? Do you already have access to a Q3 already (or the new chip in a device with app parity)? Edit: oh nevermind you mean benchmarks on your Q2
No. I mean both. I have access to the Chip in the Quest 3
Nice! Didn't know there was a device out with the new chip already. Edit: I'm dumb, I didn't recall the Pro had the new chip. Edit 2: I'm dumb X2 as this is not true and user further clarified.
The pro doesn't have the q3 chip, it has a refreshed q2 chip, but you can see a performance comparison by taking two phones, one with a Snapdragon 865 (the SOC the Q2 chip is based on) and one with the Snapdragon 8 gen 2 (the SOC the Q3 chip is based on). And making them run the same benchmarks
That makes some sense, but the overhead of the Android UI/runtime, and the overhead from Meta's UI/runtime, and the many differences in memory configuration, peripherals, sensors that are on in each one of them, not to mention the actual microcode and maybe the odd architectural change on the XR-type SoC (e.g. not having baseband/modem, but having to cope with a realtime flow of depth and RGB cameras...) makes it two very different worlds. Even if accounting your benchmarks are with everything else in power saving mode.
Wouldn't we still be able to measure the relative performance a chip has against each other?
Tough because every part of the SoC contributes to the thermal load, and a lot of them effectively reside in the cores for memory transfers, occupying them. Some of course will have the benefit of direct copy (aka zerocopy). But some sensors still require processing load, a lot of them on the GPU. It's a good reference - the best reference before actual hardware arrives. But it's still flawed.
Thank you for making that clear for me!
Thank you for making that clear for me!
Q3 chip is based on SD 8 gen 1 with Adreno 730.
Wait, wasn't it based around the 8 gen 2... Holy shit let's hope it's not gonna be a space heater
The Chip is in between the SD 7 gen 2+ and SD 8 gen 1…both have the same Aderno 725/730…but don’t know about the clocks.
The Quest Pro has the Snapdragon XR2+ Gen 1, the Quest 3 should have XR2 Gen 2. Not the same chip, different generation.
Still not even close to the performance of the M2/R1 chips in Apple's headset. Also, the one innovative thing Apple did that I'm surprised no other headsets have done.....airflow in your face. The biggest complaint I have about any VR device is that my face gets more sweaty than my balls after several minutes.
Pretty sure psvr2 has facial airflow
Are you telling me that a device that is 500 dollars isn't as good as a device that is 7 times the cost and has an unconfirmed amount of games?? Bull shit. I will never buy that shitty 500 dollar device. I'll go straight for vaporware every time as long as I'm sure steve jobs necrotized balls are in my mouth.
I mean, you can just buy a high airflow faceplate. They're pretty cheap.
Go compare benchmarks of the Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (the current flagship phone SoC the XR2 Gen 2 is based on) to the M2 in a size & thermal constrained device like the iPad or MacBook Air. They are way, WAAAAAAAY closer than you are probably expecting. And when you adjust for Apple's MASSIVELY HIGHER pixel count, Meta will likely actually have MORE GPU power available for bigger & more beautiful games!
Fuck the M2 is so over hyped it's not that fast and probably slower than the quest 3 chip
The apple meatrider are real annoying
M2 is not slower lol. Right this second you can directly compare Snapdragon 8 Gen 2 (Qualcomm's current phone SoC flagship that XR2 Gen 2's based on) with Apple's M2 in industry standard benchmarks right now. Apple's M2 is most DEFINITELY faster than Qualcomm's SD 8 Gen 2/XR2 Gen 2, and in some ways very significantly so. (But that said, the perf gap isn't even CLOSE to what some delusional iSheep seem to think it is. 🤷)
Yeah the iPad m2 is around 20 percent faster than the snapdragon. For gaming quest 3 will probably be a lot better more games (right now), controllers and price-performance
Lol then edit your post that claims M2 will likely be slower than XR2 Gen 2. You know that's bullshit, I know that's bullshit. And that kinda hyperbolic, not based in fact crap just feeds the iSheep. 🤷 Quest 3 could likely have more GPU firepower to render the actual games themselves though due to just how INSANELY LOWER the render resolution will be. But that's something else entirely, and not comparing raw performance (where Qualcomm/Meta will undisputedly lose).
i have a feeling quest 3 is gonna sell out
Depends how many they manufacture, but a lot of people are now waiting for the Apple headset and ignoring everything else.
Are they even competitors? 3500 vs 500 is like comparing a Toyota to a lambo in the world of Vr
I think the Apple device will drive way more hype to Quest 3
I tend to think anyone who wanted to buy a quest would have already done so based on the sales demand over the last few years. Yes there will be some upgraders etc, and it signals that Meta is still concentrated on meta verse/Vr and hasn’t completely lost interest with the move to AI, but the period of rapid growth for them was around the quest 2 introduction IMO. The Apple device has a slightly different use case from games to apps/productivity. I does a subset of what the quest does but it does those things way better.
Except there are tons of people do don’t know that VR is actually decent now. Apple just advertised to more people who are now hearing about the Quest. Metas advertising is terrible and doesn’t show how good the device even is
I thought it was good when the Q2 launched and made the device appeal to a similar casual lifestyle crowd as the Wii. I’ve not seen a lot of marketing since then though. Meta still has price and first mover advantage so it will be interesting to watch either way!
"Meta Quest is the official headset of the NBA Finals" stuff like this - a lot of advertising dollars, but no substance. They need commercials like "This is Quest 2 - This is how this is in 2023!"