Also interested, from the videos it seems like it could be pretty modest if options are presented for appropriate resolutions to fit a corner facecam style window but if the only options are for larger applications like skype hd video chats it could be pretty heavy.

This question was specifically about CPU vs. GPU, but the answer might shed some light on this.

Originally posted by HoloTech Studio's on the Facerig Forums:

I'll just put a short reply for now with more info to come later, but those specs are there because in a recommended setting you'd run FaceRig in parallel with games, streaming software and maybe other stuff stoo.

Also we have no control on how much optimization the community custom avatars will have, so they may be built in a way that makes even the most powerful system break a sweat. From the artists that we've collaborated so far to prototype the import prcess we initially got meshes that definitely weren't optimized for being rendered in real time ( they were more on the side of production rendering, with all the details coming from the model, without using normal maps for the finer details. Also texture maps were excessively large).

So FaceRig is not THAT much of a resource hog :) .

Source link[facerig.com]

Awesome, great to know.

Here's hoping to well-optimized meshes!

Based upoin community feedback, we have updated the system requirements so that they represent only the resources that might be needed by FaceRig.

When I was testing Facerig tonight, it was taking between 40-50% of my CPU power. When I started streaming, Xsplit and Facerig together were taking up about 90-95% CPU. When I tried to launch a game (Shovel Knight), Facerig crashed.

For comparison, I'm running Win 7 64-bit with 8 GB of RAM, AMD 2.9GHz 4 core processor and an AMD Radeon 7800 video card. YMMV.

i had to significantly lower my stream settings from 60 fps 480p with decent settings to 25 fps, with ultrafast encoding as opposed to standard superfast, and lower other settings just to get it to normal levels, so yes it takes a pretty huge hit.

I also lowered the program resolution to its lowest which is only like 960 and still had some impact.

im running windows 7 64 bit on a mac pro 2008, with an ati 4870 hd radeon and 16 gigs of FB DIMMS and a 2X Dual Core Processor at 2.66ghz (4 cores alltogether, two die's each dual cores) xeons i also have an 8600 i think, its a really bad stock card i could i think put on a se cond monitor and run facerig on that screen then broadcast from that monitor so its less of a hit on my 4870 but it sounds wonky.

The settings need to be toned down a whooollle bunch, because streaming software is VERY cpu heavy, let alone running this with a game. So i advise turning it down to lowest resolution in teh software, which really shouldnt be running at full but is it. It sucks that its rendering such a large window only to output to a small camera. Idealy it needs to be at most 720p but 480p should be an option but it only goes to 960 at lowest.

With Facerig pushing an image out to a virtual camera, does the quality of what's displayed via Xsplit, OBS, or Skype change based on Facerig's display settings? Perhaps being able to crunch it down to 480@25 would work as a suitable camera replacement in that case.

Originally posted by Freyar:

With Facerig pushing an image out to a virtual camera, does the quality of what's displayed via Xsplit, OBS, or Skype change based on Facerig's display settings? Perhaps being able to crunch it down to 480@25 would work as a suitable camera replacement in that case.

As far as I can tell, yes.

Higher resolutions in FaceRig definitely look better in the virtual camera.

Hmm.. Facerig seems to eat about 20-35% of my CPU when it's running.