Speaking on stage at Oculus Connect this morning, Oculus CTO John Carmack gave his signature unscripted talk, somehow going into depth despite covering a wide range of topics from Go to Quest to Rift, and plenty more. Part of his talk offered some insights into the relative power in the Quest headset and the expectations that developers and users should consider.

Oculus Quest is powered by Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 835 chip which isn’t uncommon to find in modern smartphones. Because it doesn’t have to be crammed into the tight confines of a phone, however, the processor can be run more aggressively without overheating. In fact, Quest has a fan inside to further dissipate heat and keep the headset at peak performance.

Photo by Road to VR

But how does a Snapdragon chip with active cooling translate to actual processing power and what kinds of games and graphics can developers expect to achieve? Oculus CTO John Carmack offers some insights..

“In terms of raw processing power […] Quest is in the neighborhood of the power of a previous gen Xbox 360 or PS3 […],” Carmack said at Oculus Connect. “But the important thing to keep in mind is that most games in that generation rendered a 1,280 × 720 view at 30 FPS and most of them didn’t have very good anti-aliasing. While in VR, we’re hoping you can render at 1,280 × 1,280—twice for stereo—at 72 FPS, which is eight and a half times more pixels than you would have on an old [Xbox] 360 game. Plus you want to be at 4x MSAA and Trilinear Filtering which are some percentages additional on top of that.”

So even though Quest has roughly the processing power of an Xbox 360, the greater demands for rendering VR content at higher resolution and framerate mean we shouldn’t expect to see ‘Xbox 360’ graphics from Quest any time soon, says Carmack.

“So it is not possible to take a game that was done at a high quality level, like a AAA title for [the Xbox 360] generation, and expect it to look like that in VR—it’s so many more pixels to wind up rendering.”

Oculus CTO Explores Next-gen Oculus Go Feature Wishlist

But, Quest isn’t without at least some advantages, which developers should hope to exploit to optimize their titles.

“On the upside [Quest has] far more texture memory and far more main memory in general than [anyone] had on those platforms, so some of the development can be easier, and in many cases you can trade really rich textures for complex shaders and multi-pass rendering in different ways,” Carmack said.

But whether or not Quest can deliver graphics which come close to what’s seen on PC today doesn’t impact the “core magic”, as he puts it, that Quest can deliver.

“I do stand by the statement that I made that the core magic of any Rift experience can be brought to [Quest],” he said.  “But you can’t ignore the level of processing power differences. A big high-end PC can use up to 500 watts of power, and something like [Quest] is burning 5-something—there’s almost a factor of 100 difference in the total power.”

Image courtesy Oculus

Given Quest’s positioning between the low-end Go and the high-end tethered Rift, Carmack believes that Quest will be look at by customers as a portable gaming device, and that means direct competition with Nintendo’s popular Switch console.

“Essentially, realistically we are going to wind up competing with the Nintendo Switch as a device where I don’t think there’s gonna be that many people who say ‘I’m not gonna buy a PS4, I’m gonna buy a Quest instead,’ I think we’re gonna have people that—like I’m a gamer, I’ve got my brand of choice for the main console, maybe I’ve got a PC to play games on—I’m gonna pick up a Quest as a mobile device, very much like the Switch is [perceived by consumers] right now.”

If that’s true, it means Quest will need to deliver very compelling content and tremendous value to customers in order to be relevant to a large number of users, especially considering that Switch sells for $100 less than Quest, and could be even cheaper by the time Quest launches in Spring 2019.

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.

Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • dk

    than why is the Xbox360/PS3 not as small as a SD835 phone

    • Engineer_92

      Hmmm, maybe because its 12-13 year old tech? Just a thought lol

      • dk

        right so the quest is as powerful 12-13 years old console

        • Roddeh

          True power, but performance should be better (72 vs 30 FPS). It will not run 12-13 year old games, it will run the latest VR games.

        • david vincent

          As powerful as a last-gen console but with 34x less power consumption ! I know, it’s impressive…

  • Luke

    I need Onward and Echo VR with cross platform multiplayer, I don’t care if graphic will be downgraded. but I need to play with friends and relatives online, if they can’t buy a PC VR ready, the Quest is the best product. I own Oculus CV1 and a good pc, do it’s only a question of if they will bring those very good multiplayer games on Quest before I will try con coinvince my relatives to buy it. If it’s not compatible with those games they will probably do not buy that. We wants to see each others in game other than “skype” doing cools thigs togheter.

  • david vincent

    XBox 360 : 170W (full charge)
    Oculus Quest : 5W
    Not bad !

    • Muzufuzo

      Quest is actually about 1.5x faster than X360 and has a few times more RAM. It will probably take a decade to bring standalone VR sets to current high-end PC level. Maybe then VR will take-off. Hard to predict people’s preferences now. Most folks I know won’t be interested in buying Quest, even for 200$… let alone 400$. They prefer their PCs or PS4s.

      • namekuseijin

        perhaps you should try some to make friends with some normies instead of just gpu basement freaks

        • Muzufuzo

          No, I avoid normies when i can. And normies won’t buy Quest anyway.

          • namekuseijin

            They said the same about the wii. Prepare to be amazed

    • MosBen

      It seems like the Quest 2 will use the equivalent of a Snapdragon 855 or 865. Given what they can already do on the Quest, that’s pretty exciting.

      • Muzufuzo

        10nm 2017 Snapdragon 835 in Quest 2019 and 7nm Snapdragon 855 in Quest 2021. Makes sense. 855 is going to be twice as fast and Oculus will maybe increase FoV (120-130°?) and res (to 4K). 2023 Quest will probably incorporate Foveated Rendering making even 8K practical but for games I see 4K upscaled to 8K the best way to go.

        • MosBen

          I have a feeling that there will be a bit more time between hardware generations, with Oculus staggering the updates to their three lines on alternating years. So I’d expect to see the Quest in 2019, the Rift 2 in 2020, an update for the Go in 2021, and then the Quest 2 in 2022. Or maybe they’ll skip a year in somewhere in there.

          • Muzufuzo

            I doubt that. The are probably going to release new mobile units every two years with twice the processing power of previous (and other improvements like FoV). PC VR every 3 years because they are the most cutting-edge at the time of release.

          • daveinpublic

            Twice the processing power? Quest 2 will get foveated rendering. So we’ll get a lot more power faster than you think.

          • Muzufuzo

            Foveated rendering doesn’t increase processing capability, it just enables higher rendering resolution for the same cost as lower resolution (for example 8K for the same cost as 1080p).

          • daveinpublic

            It eliminates the need to render many of the pixels, freeing the processor to do many other things, like render more polygons, or whatever the developer wants.

          • Ellie 187

            “So I’d expect to see the Quest in 2019, the Rift 2 in 2020…”

            You really think there will be a second rift?? i’m highly doubting that… Facebook wants their entry level Go and then their ‘Quest’ .. they only really care about making social media in VR… hoping to sell these devices to millions of teenage boys and girls.

          • MosBen

            Sure, if for no other reason than it drives further product development. They’ve shown what they’re working on with Halfdome. It’s obviously not a consumer product yet, but it will be easier to make it into a Rift 2 than it will be to turn it into a Quest 2. The Rift line probably won’t ever sell as many units as the Quest, at least not unless something about how it works is changed dramatically, but it’s a good platform for developing new technologies that will eventually trickle down into the mobile tiers as more powerful mobile hardware becomes available.

        • namekuseijin

          So it’ll be displaying wii-like graphics in 4K? Cool huh? Many polygonal edges to check out

          seriously, dude. Pixel counters have no clue about what makes VR great

  • jj

    we all want that , but its not here yet. Its on its way though, just not doable for this headset.

  • This means the xbox360 & PS3 could have had VR this whole time!

    • MosBen

      I mean, Nintendo had VR on the Virtual Boy decades ago. Sure, the Xbox 360 and PS3 could power VR setups, but the industry to support it wasn’t developed at that time, and things like tracking, ergonomics, etc. hadn’t been developed.

      • Michael Slesinski

        yea.. not like kinect was a thing.

        • MosBen


    • Muzufuzo

      They could BUT it is one thing to have mobile Quest with similar capabilities and other thing when you are tethered. People are more eager to accept lower quality in mobile than when they have to use cables and connect it to a gaming console. Even the base Xbox One is in my opinion too weak for VR, let alone X360. I tried PS4 VR and it is enjoyable but I prefer PC VR. One thing for certain is that PSVR headset is the most comfortable.

      • Ellie 187

        “One thing for certain is that PSVR headset is the most comfortable.”

        Its a shame the powerplant is so lackluster (the ps4 pro is crap), the tracking on the PSVR is pretty terrible as well, not to mention the move controller is worse than the Vive wands, let alone compared to the superior Rift touch controllers.

        • Muzufuzo

          VR is its current form is a joke anyway. I regret wasting money on VR. Too expensive, too uncomfortable, too crude, too low res.

        • Muzufuzo

          Wait 20 years and VR will get somewhere.

  • I think going with Tegra would have been better

    • Darshan

      Tegra are power hungry

  • HomeAudio

    Will it run this titles (???) :
    – Subnautica
    – The Forest
    – Elite: Dangerous
    – Project Cars 2
    – Seeking Dawn
    If no… than I am saying: “Thank you – it is not for me”.

    • jj

      I think it makes sense that people will feel the same way, and it wont really effect the quest too much. Its just about what level of involvement you’re looking for.

    • MosBen

      I’m not familiar with all of those, but I’m pretty confident that it won’t run Elite or Cars 2. But that’s fine. There will always be a tier of VR products designed for hardcore enthusiasts. This isn’t that. Hopefully it will be a product with lots of fun games that appeal to lots of people and really grows the industry. That would be good for everyone involved.

      • daveinpublic

        Some people just don’t want to buy a PC. Some of those people still want a VR headset with 6DOF.

        • MosBen

          I showed my sister my Rift last night, and it was the first time that she had experienced VR. She asked if it would run on a Surface, and was disappointed that it wouldn’t. Neither she or my brother-in-law are gamers, and they’re never going to build a capable gaming PC. They might get something like this.

      • impurekind

        Let’s put it like this: If most of those games could be made to run on Switch, and they probably could, then I expect they could also be made to run on the likes of Quest at a push. It may not get those specific games, who knows, but I expect it will be powerful enough to give people games just like those for the developers who actually know what they are doing and indeed want to make titles like that. And they don’t have to have every single shader turned on to achieve such a feat.

    • Anthony Kenneth Steele

      Endspace was somewhat similar to Elite danderous and that ran on a galaxy s6 (gear vr) and the quest is 3.5x the power of an s6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgKn_8ZmpDs

      • Muzufuzo

        845 is not as powerful as the XBO, your info is plainly wrong. 845 is roughly 2x X360 + 8x or more RAM. So it will take a while.

        • Anthony Kenneth Steele

          The snapdragon 845 is 24% faster than nvidia tegra x1 in the nintendo switch which is 1 teraflop and the xbox one is 1.3 teraflops so the snapdragon 845 is 1.24 teralops slightly less than the xbox one.


          • Muzufuzo

            You are writing about fp16 and games don’t use fp16, they use fp32. 845 is 2x X360/PS3. Switch in normal (mobile) mode does 157.3 fp32 gflops. Quest does 350-400.

          • Muzufuzo

            fully utilized new Tegra Xavier is equal to the base PS4, such a system might be in use in a high-end very expensive standalone VR headset which won’t become popular due to price

          • Anthony Kenneth Steele

            The xavier is too big for portable devices anyway

          • Muzufuzo

            so there is no way to achieve even Xbox One level of performance in a standalone headset at the moment

          • Anthony Kenneth Steele

            Having to process a stereoscopic image no.

          • Muzufuzo

            Foveated rendering will help greatly but Oculus is hinting at 2022 so we have to wait a bit.

          • Anthony Kenneth Steele

            Eye tracking is the ultimate in creepy

          • Muzufuzo

            yes I agree, but with slow 500-5000 gigaflops GPUs there is no other way, you know that

    • saintkamus

      those titles don’t even need positional tracking that much… You’re better off just waiting for a discounted windows MR headset. They go for as low as 100 dollars often (with out controllers at that price)

    • impurekind

      Well, if most of those games could be made to run on Switch, and they probably could, then I expect they could also be made to run on the likes of Quest at a push. It may not get those specific games, who knows, but I expect it will be powerful enough to give people games just like those for the developers who actually know what they are doing and indeed want to make titles like that. And they don’t have to have every single shader turned on to achieve such a feat.

  • impurekind

    So, realistically, it’s probably about Wii level but just in HD and in VR, which I’m totally fine with. Seeing some of the best Wii games running on the Dolphin emulator should give you an idea of the kind of visuals you could put out on this thing, and that’s all good by me. Eternal Darkness in VR–and that’s a GC game–would still totally and utterly rock my world. There’s no major issues with the power of this thing–but there might be with some developers who just waste a lot of power or don’t really know any better how to get the most out of it.

  • I don’t think Switch and Quest are in competition…switch is a famous brand and it is a portable console, meaning you can play it on the bus for instance. Quest is a different matter.

  • kool

    I hope the 865 is as powerful as a ps pro. If that is the case Sony could release a wireless psvr2 with an instant back catalog and enough power on board to make VR an option for any next gen game when streamed from the ps5!

    • Muzufuzo

      S835 is about 50% faster than X360 (but has much more RAM at disposal). S855 is 2x faster than 2017 S835. S865 is going to be 2013 Xbox One level AT BEST. PS4 Pro is unachievable that quickly, it is comparable to an overclocked 1050 Ti. So we are looking at probable year of 2025…

      • Muzufuzo

        to clarify one thing: I mean 2025 for 200-400$ standalone VR set, in high-end smartphones (or high-end standalone VR units), PS4 Pro processing power will be available sooner, in 2023, going by how things are going

        • MosBen

          It’ll be interesting if smartphones continue along that trajectory. Is there a point at which smartphones simply don’t need the increased computing power? Are we going to be playing PS4 Pro level games on our phones?

          • Muzufuzo

            Certainly, VR headsets need as much computing power as possible, more is always better. I don’t care about playing games on my phone, I care about large Field of View. SoCs will definitely get faster, you can play Fortnite or PUBG on a smartphone/tablet today and people want to use current PC ultra settings if possible, not the lowest. When standalone headsets (like Quest) sell in tens of millions, they can have their own SoCs, designed for VR.

          • MosBen

            I just don’t really expect phones to continue to be a major player in VR, at least after a certain point. Phones are already crazy expensive. I don’t know that it really makes sense for most people to spend a ton of money on a phone whose amazing processing powers are mostly for VR. I don’t know. I’m certainly not someone that plays a ton of games on my phone, but it seems like most of the games don’t require beastly powerful processors. I think that the needs of VR will exceed the needs of people on their phones, and it won’t really make sense to continue to push faster and faster processors into phones. This is especially true as products like the Go and Quest make VR something that people can get a better experience from an affordable, dedicated device.

            Carmack talked about how he expected that the phone business would push screen resolutions higher, faster, but they haven’t, and VR manufacturers may need to take the lead on some of the development (and dev costs) of the next generation of VR displays. That seems like something that will apply to SoCs as well.

  • Foreign Devil

    THanks for the real world comparisons Carmack! I think Quest really will be most attractive to the social gamer who wants to mess around on VR Chat or FB chat.

  • Michael Slesinski

    NOT good enough! most of us propping the vr industry up ALREADY OWN HARDWARE! why the hell would we want LESS power? why would we want a WORSE experience? this product is just plain stupid (especially for the price). in much the same way that vive owners look down on gear vr owners people who have been supporting the industry thus far are going to ignore this product as an inferior version of what we already have, and anyone who is “finally” ready to take the plunge into vr for the quest didnt want it badly enough in the first place to cough up the cash before, so why would they now?

    • Muzufuzo

      Oculus (Facebook) is going for mainstream. We, VR enthusiasts are not mainstream customers. Personally, I am upset that PC VR evolves slower than expected. I thought that by now we would be able to buy something like the Vive Pro with wireless connection for half the price it actually goes for.

    • MosBen

      First, I’m someone with a Rift, and I’m super excited for this, so it’s not really the case that all VR enthusiasts think that this is a stupid product. More importantly, though, this is a product that gives an experience like a Rift or Vive, but with less detailed graphics and a greatly reduced cost and complexity. I could absolutely see my non-enthusiast friends or family members picking one of these up.

      • Michael Slesinski

        “First, I’m someone with a Rift, and I’m super excited for this” – that just makes you a stupid sheep. like the very kind of idiot that would buy a t-shirt supporting the product.

        “so it’s not really the case that all VR enthusiasts think that this is a stupid product.” – well then its a good thing i used the word “most” instead of “all”, now isnt it?

        “More importantly, though, this is a product that gives an experience
        like a Rift or Vive, but with less detailed graphics and a greatly
        reduced cost and complexity.” – im guessing you have a plastic based girlfriend in your closet with THAT logic. for the record it has a “SLIGHTLY reduced cost”, but you keep fanboying, you are TOTALLY fooling everyone.

        ” I could absolutely see my non-enthusiast friends or family members picking one of these up.” – “could absolutely” huh? so a “definite possibility”? i mean maybe you do have friends who are stupid enough to be talked into things they have no interest in, most people DONT buy things they dont give a fuck about though.

        • MosBen

          Right, anyone who has slightly different priorities from you is a stupid sheep, rather than someone for whom different things are more important, and making a product that such people may want, rather than for people like you, is a bad idea.

          Re: most vs all. Man, it’s not often that someone nitpicks the grammar used in their own post and gets it wrong. You said that most of the people “propping up the VR industry already own hardware”. Indeed, it seems like you probably could go further than that. If anyone is in the category of people propping the VR industry up, they almost certainly own hardware already. I suppose someone could be buying VR software that they can’t use, but I don’t really think that that’s the case. But you did say that the “people who have been supporting the industry thus far are going to ignore this product”. At best that’s not clear, but seems to be saying that as a group people who currently support the industry won’t get a Quest. That seems extremely unsupported to me.

          Re: experience like a Rift/Vive: What’s the relationship between the use of logic and having a “plastic girlfriend”? And when you consider that someone doesn’t have to buy a gaming PC to use the Quest, it’s $400 all-in price is greatly reduced from the $400 plus $400-$800 necessary for a PC to run the Rift.

          How do you get me saying that I could see friends/family buying this to their needing to be talked into it? Most of my friends and family haven’t purchased a VR headset because it’s expensive, requires tinkering with computer hardware, is annoying to set up, etc. Similarly, most people that I know didn’t buy 4k TVs or BluRay players, or any other new piece of tech when they first hit the market. They waited for the products to go through a generation and come down in price. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t interested. The Quest is likely to be the product where the graph of their interest in VR crosses the graph of their budget-willingness to pay.

          Or everyone is sheep and you’re sooooooo smart.

          • Michael Slesinski

            fanboys are sheep. nobody would expect you to understand that though, sheep are just not thinkers.

            its not “nitpicking” to correct somebody when they are trying to put words in your mouth. if you dont think there are people out there who have invested in the technology that DONT own headsets you are even stupider than a sheep. meanwhile YOU claim you are “super excited” about the product.. so EVERYBODY must be? hypocrite much?

            too stupid to see the parallels between an actual woman and an inflatable plastic one when YOU used the words “less detailed graphics and a greatly reduced cost and complexity”? i mean im not expecting much, but if you are going to pretend to be clever do TRY to keep up. we will also note at this point that you dont for a second deny having an inflatable fuck-dummy in your closet. you dont need to buy a pc for gear vr (or cardboard) either.. yet people STILL dont own headsets. you think they are going to pay $400 when they already have a 500+$ phone in their pockets?! vr so far has been marketed mainly to GAMERS, why would people who have no interest in such things buy it? so they can pretend they are standing infront of the eiffel tower? yea, $400 for something that will entertain for about 5 min (max) sounds like what joe schmo would pay for the experience.. since they were too cheap to just get cardboard.

            not everyone is sheep, the vast majority are though. very few who test my reason are intelligent enough to NOT be seen as fucking sheep though.

          • MosBen

            I know that I’ve said this before, but man, I really hope that you’re just a young, angry person. If you’re an adult, it’s sad that you never outgrew this kind of behavior, but also that you seem to have a really high opinion of your ability to write and reason, and neither are really warranted. When I said that you were nit picking, I referred to you nit picking your own writing, which you got wrong. I don’t think that there are people who have invested in the technology that don’t own headsets. If that’s what you took, you need to practice close reading and read my post again. Similarly, I never said that everybody is excited about the Quest. Some people will have budgets and use cases that make it a great product for their needs, while others will stick with products like the Rift (Pimax, Vive, etc.)

            Yeah, and that “plastic girlfriend” metaphor really doesn’t make any sense. Clever has nothing to do with it. It’s just a really clumsy word salad that would be offensive if it wasn’t so poorly thought out.

            And yes, people didn’t need PCs to use a GearVR, but still don’t own headsets. There are lots of good reasons why this is the case. They may like it, but don’t like VR enough to invest in a gaming PC under ANY circumstances. They may not like it, and it lowered their interest in VR. They may like it, but primarily for its portability, which isn’t matched by any of the tethered headsets. They may like it, but the cost of tethered headsets is too high (when you take the cost of a PC to run it into account). As for why such people may buy the Quest, it’s relatively cheap, gives an experience far superior to GearVR or Go, is easy to set up, is portable, etc. There are lots of different life factors that may make it a good fit for people, just as there are people who want an 80″ TV and some people are fine with 40″, or some people buy a supercar while others buy a Honda Accord. People live different lives and like different things, and that’s fine.

            And in response to your last paragraph, again, you really need to grow up. Your attacks and view of people with a different viewpoint as sheep is childish, and your arguments are barely put together. Read more. Study philosophy. Go to the law school. Strike that, don’t go to law school. It’s too expensive for what you get. But more than anything, learn some humility.

    • Tam Phan

      Calm down. If what you said was wholly true for a majority of people, why would anyone want to buy a less-powerful console like a Nintendo Switch versus a more powerful console like a PS4? Many people value the portability of the system over processing power.

      The same can be said about the Quest. It’s not as powerful as flagship tethered headsets, but it’s more powerful than any other standalone VR headset on the market.

      Did you also think that Oculus Go wasn’t going to sell well, with only a Snapdragon 821 and 3DOF? It did sell well. Many sources say sales of Oculus Go are actually propping up industry numbers for growth, while in general, VR sales are falling.

      I would argue that those who want higher spec headsets are the ones in the minority. Facebook is making the same bet. If you really want higher specs, you can already buy a Vive Pro or a Pimax right now, so what are you upset about?

      • Michael Slesinski

        MOST people DONT own switches…

        how can it be “propping up the industry” if it cant run the vast majority of games?

        growth because its portable, and sales of REAL vr arent falling they are stabilizing while people wait for the next wave of products to become worth buying.

        what makes you assume im upset? are you a woman or something to care about how people “feel”?

        • kuhpunkt

          Why do you need to be such a dick?

          • Michael Slesinski

            why do you need to be such a little bitch? stalking me now? way to prove you are a loser to the entire world.

            i dont “need” to do anything, but dicks do the fucking. everyone else GETS fucked. a pussy wont fuck you, an asshole wont fuck you, and a mouth wont fuck you.. only a dick.

  • Rob

    You can’t really compare Quest to Switch. Nobody’s gonna be playing Beat Saber on a bus are they?

    • sfmike

      Don’t underestimate the stupidity of some public transit riders.

      • saintkamus

        Riders? I’mna play Beat Saber while driving. I’m no fucking beta.

  • Charles

    I don’t get why they didn’t attach the computer part to the back of the headstrap rather than having it in the front. It wouldn’t even need to be a wireless transmission to the display. Front-heaviness is one of the biggest problems with current VR.

    • Muzufuzo

      It becomes problematic when a Quest user wants to lie down and watch a movie for example.

      • Charles

        That depends on how thick it is. The average very-thin cell phone today has more graphics power than a PS3. It could be like 4 times as thick before it would be a real issue.

        • Muzufuzo

          I don’t think it could be 4x thicker than an average new smartphone without becoming uncomfortable for most people.

      • daveinpublic

        Put the battery back there. Could do that comfortably.

  • Darshan

    SD 845 is much faster and really a good head start for Oculus Quest if they can switch to SD845 before release in summer 2019 see the performance charts below, same are from reliable sources , If possible they must switch to SD845
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6ab741e9e9d535068b09a79bf4f7b9282accf5ba2ebef14dabd6b2c9a3ad39bc.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa910d1725da9758d1d12f218a99e7755ce0a998c1eaf141e9abd77ca2c84564.jpg

    • saintkamus

      It’s the OLED screens. the Pocophone has an LCD, Quest has OLED displays.

      • Darshan

        OLED screens are not that must, its subjective .. OC Go does pefactly fine with fast LCDs

        I would any day choose much powerful GPU vs cosmetic features.

  • Darshan
    • saintkamus

      I don’t know why anyone would pick up that phone over the Xiaomi Mi 8 SE.

      Similar price, similar enough performance, but OLED instead of crappy LCD.

      OLED > SD 845 on LCD.

      • Darshan

        The Xiaomi Mi 8 SE Has OLED screens but much Inferior Processor SD710 which is mid class SoC, SD 845 is flagship and is part of Galaxy S9 class phones. Also MI 8SE has FIXED Internal storage which is limiting attribute.

        There is absolute no comparison between SD710 and SD845

        OLED screen is subject to decay.. ones blue sub pixels dies all you are left is with terrible yellowish screen (jaundice patient display :-)) ) OLED causes Black Smear in VR HMDs and not necessarily must if you are not totally after contrast.

        Don’t forget OCULUS GO is LCD and pretty fine.

        What mattters in console like HMD is processing power, since purchase you made is final and it can’t be upgraded with processor replacement. when a company build console its advisable to choose most powerful processor within reach.. cause its bound to get old faster.

        I hope this makes things clear.

  • Anthony Kenneth Steele

    I expect Half-life 2 and portal

  • fdf

    Good to know the Quest is on par with 12 year old hardware. Woo…

    • kontis

      It doesn’t plug to the wall and it doesn’t eat 170 watt of power.

      You could also mock the most powerful console, XBox One X for only being on par with 15 years old (warehouse sized) supercomputer.

  • Ted Joseph

    This is a day one purchase for me. Actually, I am getting two, one for my workouts (boxing — PLEASE PORT THRILL OF THE FIGHT!), and one for gaming/movies/etc.

  • PJ

    This is THE future of VR, and I can’t wait!

    I’m happy with the Rift, and I’m planning on picking up a GO so right now I have no need for the Quest, but standalone VR has a huge future, and the Quest is just the beginning, mobile processing power is advancing much much quicker than any desktop component, the future for VR is bright, very bright!

  • Harold T

    Having a Vive on a GTX 1070, I don’t thin the VR experience is worth dumbing down even more than the Rift or Vive. The Whole VR space suffers from a lack of AAA titles and standardization across platforms to benefit from title across all platforms. Switch is much higher res than the Quest and much more portable. Portable VR is a challenge due to the closed off nature of the experience.

    • daveinpublic

      Fortunately, whatever development Quest generates will probably trickle over to Rift and Vive.

  • tekklertools

    I think Carmack is a legend and most competent in this field. But xbox 360 is pretty old hardware and standard. I can not be pleased about this announcement. There would be more possible, VR development on the PC is already limited enough. The radiation with subperformant devices does not make it easier or motivates developers to develop titles. As already mentioned, AAA titles will be the manufacturers of overall VR success, with these weak devices that will never happen. Add a battery pack or a GPU extension with cable, but not cheap, crappy mobile chips that are already 3 years old.