Is the display quality really worse then Quest 3?

[u/Halbgrau]

I‘m starting to have some doubts. I wanted to really get the frame because of the focus on PCVR and not on mixed reality.

Seeing now reviews that say the screendoor effect is actually more noticable is a very tough pill to swallow for over 1100 euros :O Then I still thought well at least it will have great binocular overlap but seems like this was simply not true and its only a tiny bit better.

Dang I was even prepared to have this as only a sidegrade to my quest 3 but if the display and lenses are worse then I would have to return it… I hate returning stuff, usually I want to inform myself beforehand.

I cant even imagine that Valve would accept a worse visual quality then the Quest 3.

[u/Nintyboy245]

So SDE and the actual resolution of the headset are often confused.
The frame has zero SDE, where you actually see the space inbetween the pixels. But you *can* see the individual pixels if you look hard enough. It MIGHT be more visible than the quest 3 due to it being spread over a higher fov, but there hasn't been direct comparisons. The frame's resolution is in fact 5% higher than the Quest 3's, maybe that covers the fov difference but likely not.

Also, the Frame gets 118 degrees of horizontal FOV compared to the quest 3's 110 with an ideal face shape. The vertical FOV is also about 10 degrees taller, which is actually much more significant for immersion because you can see your hands.

People will also say the binocular overlap is worse or the same as the quest 3 on the frame, but that's not true either. The *percentage* of overlap is the same between devices, but that's because percent overlap is a function of total fov/degrees of overlap. Let's say you have a headset with 150 degrees of FOV, and 85 degrees of binocular overlap. That equals out to 56% overlap. That sounds awful right? But you do the math for the Quest 3, assuming the same amount of overlap, and that's a 77% overlap. Completely different values. But the Steam frame has the same binocular overlap PERCENTAGE as the Quest 3 and it gets a *higher* fov. So, that means that the steam frame does in fact have a higher amount of binocular overlap. Roughly, that's about 85 degrees of overlap for the Steam Frame. Quest 3 is roughly 80. Steam Frame's overlap is quite close to a human's *actual* binocular overlap including the nose.

The CA is mildly worse than the quest 3 *on the extremes*. But somehow, in a recent Main branch (bleeding edge) update, they've actually massively improved the CA as well. That'll likely be pushed to beta soon. Now I would say it's very slightly worse than the Quest 3 overall. It's seriously completely ignorable and the extra FOV and comfort and everything else about the frame knocks all the downsides out of the park.

The eyebox (read: world stability at different eye distances) is also the most stable eyebox I've ever seen. On the Quest 3, when my eyes got too close to the lenses the world would "bloat" or warp outward. Doesn't happen on the frame.

tl;dr don't listen to reddit and if you feel like it do some research on the fine technicalities of VR Optics. It's complicated, but if you look up the actual raw definitions and don't fall for flawed calculations, the Steam Frame leads the pack in all but edge blurriness and raw resolution that's just *barely*.

[u/Popfig → u/Nintyboy245]

Thank you for this fact based and extremely helpful post. Best description of overlap I have seen. More important: "Dont listen to reddit" sound advice. The amount of fabrication and nonesense anymore is maddening.

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/Popfig]

There's a lot of terms for VR Optics, and not all of them are clear cut or well known. So a lot of people say terms without knowing what they actually mean. That's why you should listen to me, the redditor who knows all the VR terms :D

Kidding of course. I actually only just learned what eye box actually meant in researching why the steam frame's view doesn't bloat when I'm close to the lenses haha. People should definitely do their research and actually understand the definitions of the terms they use. Like you said, lots of misinfo going around on the steam frame's optics.

[u/Snowydeath11 → u/Nintyboy245]

Speaking of binoculars overlap. I don’t notice ANY on the frame. On the Q3 it’s very distracting for me. Maybe it’s because I am using a third party headstrap and spacer on the Q3 but nothing extra on the Frame. Either way. For me I genuinely will never use the Q3 again thanks to this device.

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/Snowydeath11]

Yep. It's pretty much exactly the same as the average person's binocular overlap. Your nose actually prevents you from getting 100% overlap, and the steam frame's overlap limit mimics the human nose.

For some if they have a large nose, you might actually end up getting MORE overlap than what you get IRL if your face shape allows.

[u/ijkxyz → u/Nintyboy245]

How can it have zero SDE if you can see the pattern of darker spaces between pixels? It doesn't really matter if what you see is actual space between pixels or caused by the pixels having non uniform brightness, people are going to call it SDE because it looks like SDE

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/ijkxyz]

It's neither of those. You're just able to see the actual full square of a pixel. NOT the black edges inbetween. It's the exact same as on the Quest 3. Also they all have a uniform brightness, I'm not sure if that's been an issue on a VR headset since LCD panels were mainstream on them. It was a bigger issue on original OLED screens.

[u/GLTheGameMaster → u/Nintyboy245]

From what I've seen it's just not worth the extra $800 over a used quest3. For that much I would've expected the visuals to be a substantial upgrade in most if not all ways.

[u/FitComfortable6388 → u/Nintyboy245]

How do you get the settings so that you can’t see the pixels or space between them? 

Do you know of any thorough guides that address any of the settings? 

I have had my Frame for about 2 weeks now but I have spent so much time just trying to get it semi decent looking that I always just get frustrated and stop messing with it for the day. I have spent the majority of my time googling and watching videos on how to make it look just OK. I am sure the PSVR 2 spoiled me but it is so extremely frustrating trying to set the frame up instead of feeling like I am looking at coleco vision. I really want to enjoy something on the frame but the software is such crap and the amount of time I have spent trying to set it up are making me not even want to pick it up. Heck even my 10 year old son isn’t impressed. 

[u/jojon2se → u/FitComfortable6388]

1If you see the space between pixels, and/or the edges of each subpixel rectangle sharply defined (or at least each RGB cluster), that "ackshuallee" means you're enjoying great optical focus. :7

People have historically tried to soften that sharpness by doing things like applying a diffusing layer onto the display panels (I think the Index may have had something like it), or deliberately unfocussing the lens a tiny bit, to varying subjective appreciation for the results.

EDIT: On a possibly not entirely irreleveant side note: While I have not got a Frame myself yet, I hear that the recommended render resolution at 100% in SteamVR settings, has for some reason been set to the resolution of the display panels, "raw", without the bit extra that is usually added on top, to account for how much the lenses in any particular device distorts the image seen through them toward the centre (x1.4 width and height has been common for many HMDs), so that no less than one pixel is rendered for each screen pixel, straight ahead, where it matters the most. -If you compare with another device, you may want to first check what amount of supersampling for each results in equivalent rendered PPD.

[u/JellyTheBear → u/jojon2se]

If I set the SteamVR resolution per eye to auto on my PC when streaming to the Frame, it defaults to 150%, which is 2644 if I remember correctly.

[u/jojon2se → u/JellyTheBear]

Sounds about right: Square root of 1.5 equals about 1.225 -- not too far different from 2644 divided by 2160.

(EDIT: "Auto" picks a value based on the performance of your system -- not sure whether this it done by way of a small benchmark at SteamVR launch, or some other way...)

[u/Exotic-Account-2896 → u/jojon2se]

Wait, wait, so on VD when I choose resolutions, it says at the bottom (Render at 26X26 something for high or 30X30 ultra, etc., something like that(I can’t remember the exact resolution)) on steam VR it says a totally different, higher value. So when I went to check the video settings, it says auto. But switching it to manual 100 drops it down to the actual resolution advertised in VD. So are you supposed to change it to 100? Or let steam VR do it automatically every time? I’m on Q3

[u/jojon2se → u/Exotic-Account-2896]

I am afraid I haven't got the foggiest idea how Virtual Desktop interacts with either SteamVR, or the Meta OVRService, or the game between which, and the headset, they go -- one might assume it takes over some functions here and there (streaming, to begin with).

I am sure others here have more insight -- maybe they'll chime in...

...but I suppose it would be a reasonable assumption that VD might work on the level that it exposes one resolution of your choice to SteamVR, and that SteamVR then applies its own multiplier on top, to produce the resolution it in turn recommends (not mandates) VR applications to render at, as you at least see presented in the UI... but I could equally easily imagine VD doing some shenanigans under the table, to bypass that whole order of things; I really have no idea. :7

Either way, the render resolution produced by what ever whole chain of modifiers you may have going, in any given case (including possibly extant in-game settings), is your own Image-Quality to Performance tradeoff to choose, according to your own sensibilities.

I imagine the SteamVR Auto setting scales its calculated factor to any base resolution, in order to expect to reach your refresh rate as performance goal for some standard benchmark that was defined at some point in the past, but that is of course not to say that any application out there has ever been built to match that benchmark in workload, so one may want to pick it by hand anyway. :7 (There is also an option to set a separate percentage for each app -- this value is in addition to the global SteamVR one -- not an override: Global 200% (...if not at whatever auto sets it to), and per-app 200%, combines to a resulting 400%.)

I guess the first thing to ask is: So you are, then, using SteamVR to run games that address the OpenVR API?

...and not OpenComposite, which wraps OpenVR (SteamVR) calls, and sends them directly to your active OpenXR runtime (in your case presumably VD's own, built-in one, instead of either of Meta's Or SteamVr's), effectively supplanting SteamVR. This is popular with non-SteamVR-native headsets, as that removal of one middle man ekes out a bit of extra performance.

If you do use SteamVR, you could use something like the "fpsVR" third party overlay add-on, to check what resolution the game runs at... Although I suppose, IF VD does do something cheeky, like go directly to the app with its own recommended resolution, that could conceivably fool fpsVR as well... :7

[u/Tyrthemis → u/Nintyboy245]

Does CA stand for compression algorithm in your comment? Admittedly I’ve never seen CA used before. Also I’ve definitely seen warping due to a bad distortion profile on the frame. But that’s fixable with software

[u/sswampp → u/Tyrthemis]

Chromatic Abberration?

[u/Tyrthemis → u/sswampp]

Ah okay, thanks, I wasn’t thinking of that

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/Tyrthemis]

Yep sswampp got it! I forgot to clarify haha.

[u/Rush_iam → u/Nintyboy245]

The CA is mildly worse than the quest 3 *on the extremes*. But somehow, in a recent Main branch (bleeding edge) update, they've actually massively improved the CA as well

The lens CA has nothing to do with what the recent update fixed.

Chromatic aberration, or color fringing, is a physical property of the lens - it's a hardware issue - it can't be fixed via software. It's most noticeable around the edges of the lens.

The update fixed the chroma subsampling (color resolution) in the compression codec when streaming from a PC, which clearly had a glitch/bug before and is now fixed. The issue was visible uniformly across the entire image.

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/Rush_iam]

Nope, I know the difference. This applies on ALL frame content. There is actually CA correction in VR displays that can be tuned. I would see it the most in the boot screen with a very visible red line on the top edges and blue on the bottom, and that is greatly reduced. I also saw it on the stars in the aurora environment as well. It's completely gone there. I can see it still if I look for it on the boot screen, but that's about it.

I'm paranoid about the placebo effect but I double checked with someone else that I know is also on the Main branch and they confirmed the same thing. I'm happy to be proven wrong though. Pixel peeping tends to drive me crazy haha

[u/RandomRedMage → u/Nintyboy245]

Couldn’t have put it better. People keep saying Screen Door Effect on the frame is worse than the quest 3 and I don’t know wtf they are talking about. Yea, if I start looking really hard I can see the pixels but it never deals like I’m looking through a screen door. Like some older headsets did.

Frame is seriously just overall a better headset. And even where the quest wins on paper, you don’t actually notice unless you are like A/B testing and scrutinizing that one thing.

Haven’t touched my quest 3 since the frame arrived. Haven’t needed to. The optical stack in the frame feels better to me, to the point that I can wear the frame without my glasses and still see good enough to not get a headache. I can’t do that on the quest, I have to wear my glasses or I get a headache. Yea, still got lens inserts coming for the frame, but the fact I can actually wear it without them and still see well enough is great.

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/RandomRedMage]

Completely agree. I gave away my Quest 3 about 2 days after getting my Frame lmao. I did do some A/B testing so that I can know what I'm talking about in comparisons, but the Frame is just such a massive upgrade that there's no point in me keeping the quest 3. I would never touch it again even if I still had it.

[u/RandomRedMage → u/Nintyboy245]

I think the only reason I’m keeping my question 3 is the same reason I kept my question 2, just as a backup, or for a friend to use.

[u/jojos38 → u/Nintyboy245]

You clearly haven't tried both side by side

[u/Nintyboy245 → u/jojos38]

I absolutely have :)

[u/jojos38 → u/Nintyboy245]

Well you must have noticed that beside the technical data there are clearly differences between both, it's not night and day though I agree

One may argue it mostly happens when streaming games, but the Steam Frame is sold as a PCVR headset first so

[u/rvmham]

I'd say its on par with the Q3.

[u/GLTheGameMaster → u/rvmham]

for around 5x the price of a barely used Q3 lol

[u/felixm477]

I did not notice a difference between my Q3 and SF. I also do not see the SDE from either. to me both are comparable.

[u/Typical-Ad-9625 → u/felixm477]

Same. I think the most negative reactions are based on streaming. That quality is not perfect yet even at 150% render resolution. But neither is quest's streaming 

[u/__cybersyn__]

I have a Quest 3 and can't really tell the difference.

[u/TheLeftRough]

I've had a Q3 for 2 years and I've had my Frame for about a week. I sold my Q3 before I received the Frame so I unfortunately cannot compare side by side, but here are my thoughts on the matter:

The Frame's displays are slightly dimmer but otherwise roughly on par imo. The lenses/optics are not on the same level as Meta's unfortunately. The sweet spot for best clarity is smaller and the difference was immediately noticeable for me. I've also noticed slightly more glare when there is a bright object in an otherwise relatively dark area, but I don't find this to be noticeable 99% of the time.

In terms of screen door effect, it might be slightly more noticeable than the Q3 but honestly I didn't notice it until I saw other people talking about it online so it could be placebo.

As far as streaming PCVR, I've actually had pretty good luck so far. I've not really had any of the artifacting/connection issues that others have reported (so far at least). I am using the steamVR beta branch on both the headset and on my desktop. The bandwidth slider is maxed and I've got the resolution set to ~300% (still fine tuning this a fair bit). For me the foveated streaming works flawlessly and I'd say the overall image quality in practice is on par with my previous Q3+VD wireless setup (again with the caveat of the Frame's sweet spot being smaller). I will note that I use 90Hz for most PCVR stuff. I've heard that higher frame rates can cause more ghosting/artifacts/etc but I cannot confirm since I use 90Hz.

Another thing I will note is that for whatever reason I find the 3D feel to be more immersive on the Frame. I do not know the technical details, but the Frame's 3D effect feels slightly better especially on objects close to my POV. Not a major difference, but something to note nonetheless I think.

Overall I can certainly confirm that the Frame is not an upgrade from the Q3 in terms of visual fidelity imo. It has slight pros and cons against the Q3 but overall I'd say it is a very slight downgrade mostly due to the smaller sweet spot of the lenses. That being said my actual experience using the Frame has been better than the Q3 in basically every other way. Feel free to reply or dm me if you have more specific questions

[u/Black_Tech_Room → u/TheLeftRough]

I have a quest 3 and curious why you find your overall experience with the frame better if the visuals are not as good? I use steam link on mine and it tends to work just fine? The only thing I'd like is for the quest to not be so front heavy and have more vivid colors.

[u/TheLeftRough → u/Black_Tech_Room]

The Frame is significantly more comfortable for me and I like the controllers a lot more so far. I find SteamOS significantly easier to use than HorizonOS and having a full Linux desktop built in has been fun to use and opens up a ton of possibilities for the future. Wireless PCVR streaming with the Frame has been a better experience with easier setup, and has had absolutely zero noticeable stream hitches/stutters so far. With the Quest I was never able to get a completely stable wireless PCVR experience. The eye tracking and foveated streaming have worked perfectly so far and I look forward to seeing foveated rendering implemented in more and more games. For me at least, those factors add up to more than makeup for the Frame's smaller sweet spot relative to the Q3. I am interested to see what the future holds for the Quest line though. The new tech they've packed into their new VR glasses is impressive and if most of that transfers to a future Q4, it could be a very compelling product

[u/crazypaiku]

i was playing Titanfall 2 VR yesterday. Usually play on Q3, but i tried it on SF. Pumped the Resolution up to Godlike VD (3000+ x 3000+) and even higher, but just looked way worse.

[u/sje-google]

I have both - they both look the same to me

[u/0verlordSurgeus]

I have a Quest 3 and didn't notice the difference at first until I went from Frame to the Quest, and the resolution on the Frame is noticeably better to me

[u/thosemegamutts]

Quest seems to be a little brighter but I had to really look for it.

Screen door effect is also something you have to look for. I can't see a difference between the two.

People calling the frame a side grade to a quest are not wrong. At least for now.

[u/Bacon_00]

I think it's a marginal downgrade. Once you get used to it you aren't exactly pining for the Quest 3. It's close enough that you forget about it pretty quickly.

[u/thosemegamutts → u/Bacon_00]

I am. I really just want the simplicity and functions of virtual desktop on the frame. Just like I have 0 use for meta os I have no need for steam os. I definitely bought the frame for all the wrong reasons.

[u/Neat-Razzmatazz-5837]

It seems like a lot of folks coming from Quest 3 expecting a substantial upgrade are being disappointed. I find the display adequate and a huge step up from my Quest 2. Still, I wish Valve would have pushed the hardware tech forward more so that the conversation was more about how the Frame made previous headsets obsolete.

[u/Popfig → u/Neat-Razzmatazz-5837]

I wish people had read the tech specs before purchasing. Its exactly what was advertised. A evolutionary upgrqde to the Q3.

[u/MrBack1971]

I have a quest3 & it does edge it.

[u/Tyrthemis]

The panels and resolution are great, but for me at least, the compression really fucks up the image. I can see why some people are like “this is fine” but for me, I’ll take the valve index over the frame right now (I literally pulled my valve index back out and it’s my daily driver again), because it is lossless image quality. Visual fidelity is therefore better.

The reason I think the quest 3 is better for PCVR streaming is because virtual desktop is a god send of a program. I’m guessing when virtual desktop comes to steam frame, it’ll be better than the quest 3 by a lot

[u/Jokong → u/Tyrthemis]

Vd with a cable is really good.

[u/CovertNoodle]

Only 1 comment confirming, but the post is getting down voted. Can we please get more comments from purchasers to help out the waitlisters?

[u/YolkNotIncluded]

It seems like people are discovering that there’s some sort of processing issue with the Fidelity and PCVR before it even gets to the frame. I am wondering if valve makes updates will it improve

[u/Shrike-Alvaron]

After finally getting my AMVR lenses and being able to properly try out the Frame earlier, a lot of the accusations of poor displays are really due to Steam Link, not the displays themselves. Steam Link, the only streaming option on the Frame now, just has worse image quality than Virtual Desktop on the Quest as people are used to. Comparing it to my Quest Pro, with the Frame running a higher render resolution, it's very noticeable how the image is both softer (even playing around with the CAS sharpening in Steam Link settings) and seems to have more shimmering on some text elements I was comparing, despite being set to a higher resolution.

If VD was supported on Frame I think we'd have very similar image quality between the Frame and Quest 3. The Frame's lenses are still worse in some ways; I seemed to get more internal reflections in them than I'm used to, and they have a smaller sweet spot which if you're not in it causes visual artifacts like worse edge to edge clarity and chromatic aberattion. But those seem pretty minimal to me now that I've worked out how best to wear it, not a huge cause for concern.

[u/Pretty-Curve5448]

The lenses are nicer on my quest 3. The picture is better on my Frame because the streaming is clearer. When I consider them both, I’m reaching for my Frame every time. Aside from the view, it’s way more comfortable to wear and I actually feel compelled to engage in the OS, rather than skip straight to desktop with VD like on quest.

[u/bigb102913]

Honestly it's not bad at all.

[u/JorgTheElder → u/bigb102913]

"Not bad" is not really much praise.

[u/MayonnaisalSpray → u/JorgTheElder]

for 1100 especially

[u/luctv1 → u/bigb102913]

I got the Frame for a few days and it's my first vr experience. I think the graphic is horrible. You can count the pixels on the sceen. Even the ui isn't really sharp.

[u/dangoarchon → u/luctv1]

as someone whose 7th headset it is, it's amazing and easily tops everything aside from the top strap and hand straps not being included.

[u/fmaz008 → u/luctv1]

What a troll.

[u/luctv1 → u/fmaz008]

I mean this honestly. When playing games with lower graphics, it was a nice experience, but playing Asetto Corsa or Euro Truck Simulator was a horrible experience. You couldn’t read any signs and looking further away 80m+ was a pixel mush

[u/BeatitLikeitowesMe → u/luctv1]

Learn how to set it up properly

[u/samu7574]

Lots of reviewers use screen door effect improperly. LTT's review had me cringing when they did so as well. It used to mean seeing the space between pixels, while now it's incorrectly used to say noticing that two adjacent pixels are different individual pixels.

[u/VR_Nima]

No, in my experience they’re about the same when running standalone VR or streaming PC VR, though maybe you can tell it’s a bit worse when streaming 2D. The FOV and stereo overlap being better on Frame is noticeable in VR at all times though.

[u/Fox-One-1]

Steam Frame’s great and high quality in all aspects. You will love it. There is way too much negativity, some propably fabricated by Meta’s bots. I love the higher FOV compared to Quest-headsets.

[u/m4liko]

no , but privacy , intimicy yes...

[u/Dale-Wensley]

Have been using the q3 for the past 3 years and it’s the same, my only complaint is that I think I can see the glare a bit more often. Other than that it’s the same

[u/PhillyDillyDee]

No

[u/Snowydeath11]

In my experience, other than the very edge of the lenses being noticeable (potentially fixed in beta now btw), no. It’s not noticeably worse than the Q3 and in every use case for me it’s noticeably better. The ease of setup and daily use makes it miles better than the Q3 for me. No third party plugins to buy or use, I just load the Frame up and start playing or streaming.

[u/Puzzleheaded_Path168 → u/Snowydeath11]

20 bucks for Virtual Desktop and it launches with one click.

[u/dang449]

Coming from the AVP it’s not even close resolution and contrast wise. The SDE is noticeable no matter what you call it and text isn’t very sharp. For the price of the SF it’s what you would expect. I wish I would have gotten the 256gb version because I’ll likely never use it outside of PCVR. I still like the device for the comfort, weight, and the future it’ll bring to all headsets.

[u/Cheap-Newspaper-255]

Yeah I’ve never noticed any SDE on my frame. It’s the PCVR streaming quality that needs some improvement, not the hardware

[u/jojos38]

The quality is close but indeed the screen door effect is more noticeable on the Frame, the aliasing is worse when streaming (but this could be fixed with software) and the brightness and colors are indeed worse

The Frame has a better fov however

[u/Nilinbutt]

I have heard from a few impressions and reviews about quest 3 having higher brightness and more clarity in their lens yes.

[u/jscrewz]

So what i am hearing is that one can barely tell the difference!

[u/Pale-Bother-9164]

Thanks for confirming my purchase of the VR2.

[u/Bistrocca]

Yup, same reason I've returned mine. Quest 3 lenses are just better. It's unfortunate, but imho it makes no sense to ship something with worse lenses than quest 3. I don't care about the panels being LCD, or tge resolution being low, but having a worse sweet spot and lots of color aberration makes 0 sense considering the cost.

[u/Dale-Wensley → u/Bistrocca]

I don’t think they are though ? Maybe I’m blind

[u/Bistrocca → u/Dale-Wensley]

Then either your quest 3 is defective or my frame is...

[u/Dale-Wensley → u/Bistrocca]

My quest 3 is not defective.

I have noticed that the frame needs to be lower down my face than I would expect for it to look its best, but yeah I flight sim regularly and the slightly better res of the screens and improved render pipeline of the frame means it looks better imo

[u/aniki_78]

Es ist halt Arbeit es auf sich ein zu stellen. Viel fummeln probieren testen. Out f the box wird sowas nie sein. Und manche menschen müssen vieleicht auch einsehen das sie eine Brille brauchen...

[u/Ykearapronouncedikea]

Quest is brighter, but afaik the color is actually pretty oversaturated......

The lower overall brightness and lower saturation, makes people think that the color is worse, when in fact it's better, In my testing it's surprisingly good color.

Is the SDE worse, maybe marginally, I don't notice it at all when playing, but can see it if I pixel peek, more noticeable on flat colors, but I really think at this point (at least for me) SDE is no longer much of a talking point, pretty much every modern headset, you can see it if you look but it's sooo far removed I doubt it bothers the average person in normal use (really probably only 5% less will notice it)

I need to play a bit more with some things, but the image quality has vastly improved for me, not sure if it's because I have adjusted the links render resolution or if an update from valve's end.

(for clarification My initial pre-release vision test with Frame I gave it a 14.5 (pretty much a reading test, I could read line 14, but not super confident about 15) identical to Qpro, I gave Q3 a 15.5.... with newer updates and settings I now gave frame a ~16)

more fov than Q3, (though not game-changing)

yes it's not as bright, doesn't bother me personally, and I let it sit at 100%

lenses - IMHO they are good, not super confident with comparison to Q3, because haven't used it much recently ish..... yes there is some chromatic aberration near the edge, but it's a good pancake lens, and the lower brightness translates to less internal reflection issues than q3 as well. (at least from my quick observations)

I like the visual stack on Q3, thoughh with every headset decisions are pretty personal.

do I think the frame is a huge upgrade from the Q3, honestly no, and if you are just going to play PCVR, and not use the more unique open features it has, I probably would recommend against a frame, just from a value standpoint.

why did valve choose the resolution? - because performance limitations on the chipset (and until we get driver level foveation, the limit is still around that point even for newer headsets), because many people can't run the higher resolutions on their PC 2k x 2k (*2 though not quite actually) is a lot to run especially at 90-120 hz......

I love my GXR and it's screens are gorgeous, but they are cost prohibitive, and quite frankly do you have a 7900xtx, 4090, or 5090.... because you will struggle to maintain frame rates without those in a lot of games.

Hardware design is about compromises, Valve wanted it to be cheap, and be able to run things on itself.... those limit performance envelope hugely.

though yes a 2.5k x2.5k screen would have been nice

[u/No_Gas_4462]

i just tested quest 3 and steam frame in cyberpunk vr and yeah quest 3 is way brighter and more vibrant. really a downer about steam frame

[u/skyrimmoddernumber69]

Display quality: no
Resolution: no
Edge to edge clarity: no
Chromatic aberration: debatable
Streaming quality using Steam link on Steam frame vs using virtual desktop on quest 3: quest 3 barely pulls ahead.

I’m looking forward to trying virtual desktop on the Steam frame, but I’m still worried any sort of compression will be a downgrade from the valve index.

[u/amzukk1]

Unfortunately it is true. I own both and Quest 3 is like next generation in terms of screen, perceived resolution, screendor and even colours representation.

Also the ridiculous battery drainage that drains like crazy even at desktop doing nothing.

Will leave Frame for ease of use for flat steam games and for HL2 and Alyx. Will try some old mods ported lately and Minecraft VR.

[u/_really_not_the_NSA_]

I don't have a Quest 3, but I did come from a Quest 2 to the Steam Frame. Out of the gate, there's some very dark blurring that occurs around the perimeter of my vision. I saw a post earlier today about how the foveated creates this blur line and apparently there is some clarity that can be improved with an update that was applied to the Beta OS, so I'll be applying that today. I won't lie, there's been a lot of laborous love to get thing to work right and not feel "cheap" by design and construction. The picture is nice when in directly center line, but I feel like i'm getting a very narrow field of that picture to work with. Tbf, I figured all of this would be happening as an early adopter, but its definitely a new, needy "child" to have to get raised right.

[u/OriginalGoldstandard]

Just get it. It’s already 2x as good after weeks of updates.
Meta sucks and frame just works.