VR Devices

Device/Feature	Unique Features	Minimum Specs	Include	Year Released
Oculus Rift S	– Built-in speakers – Tethered – 80Hz refresh rate – 360 degrees tracking – 95 degrees FOV – 6DOF controllers	Intel i3-6100 or AMD Ryzen 3 1200, FX4350, NVIDIA GTX 960 4 GB or AMD Radeon R9 290, 8 GB RAM	– Headband – Left-right controllers – Optical cable	2019
Oculus Quest	– Built-in speakers – Untethered – 72Hz refresh rate – Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 processor – 360 degrees tracking – 95 degrees FOV – 6DOF controllers – 2.5 hours of battery life	None	– Headband – Left-right controllers	2019
Oculus Go	– Built-in speakers – Untethered – 360 degrees tracking – 95 degrees FOV – 3DOF controller (cannot track position) – 2-2.5 hours of battery life	None	– Headband – One controller	2018
Vive Pro	– External headphones – Wireless (purchasable wireless adapter with 2.5 hours of battery life) – Integrated eye tracking version available – 360 degrees tracking with base stations (outside-in tracking) – 110 degrees FOV – 6DOF controllers – AMOLED screens	Intel Core i5-4590 or AMD FX 8350, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 or AMD Radeon R9 290, 4 GB RAM	– Headband – Left-right controllers – 2 base stations	2018
Vive Cosmos	– External headphones – Wireless (purchasable wireless adapter with 2.5 hours of battery life) – 310 degrees tracking with cameras – Flip-up visor design – 110 degrees FOV – 6DOF controllers – Integrated sensors	Intel Core i5-4590 or AMD FX 8350, NVIDIA  GeForce GTX 970 or AMD Radeon R9 290, 4 GB RAM	– Headband – Left-right controllers	2019
Valve Index	– 130 degrees FOV with adjustable eye relief and IPD – Tethered – RGB LCD screens – External headphones that do not touch ears – 80/90/120Hz – 6DOF controllers – No wireless option available for now	Dual Core CPU, Nvidia GeForce  GTX 970 or AMD RX480, 8 GB RAM	– Headband – Left-right controllers – 2 base stations	2019

Out of all the listed VR devices above, the one I like the most (based on the description and research on the internet) is Oculus Quest, but if price is disregarded then it would be Vive Pro Eye. The points that I consider when making that decision are the price to quality ratio, design, wireless capability, and sensors.

I personally prefer untethered to tethered devices, which is strongly supported by the possibility that our legs may get tangled because VR activities mostly require body movements and that is quite dangerous, so there are 3 devices that fit the preference: Oculus Quest, Vive Pro and Vive Cosmos (by purchasing wireless adapter). Next thing to consider is the platform support. For Oculus Quest, it is not possible to connect to SteamVR unless you want to perform additional actions to make it possible (e.g. using Vridge or purchasing Oculus Link). Meanwhile, Vive Pro and Vive Cosmos support steamVR from the get-go and an alternative called Viveport. Having more options is always a nice thing, which is why I lean towards Vive VR devices in this category.

Aesthetically speaking, Oculus Quest wins in this department in my book due to its simplistic design. However, it may not be comfortable when worn on the head because it is quite heavy since all the hardware (CPU, memory, storage, graphics, etc.) that makes it wireless and the sensors contribute to the additional weight of the headset.

Having external sensors is not all that bad to me, they just require an initial setup to your room, thus not adding more weight to the headset which Vive Pro trumps at. If we are comparing Vive Pro to Vive Cosmos, I would rather have the former device. On top of not adding weights to the headset, outside-in tracking system (in Vive case the “base stations”) excels more at precision tracking than integrated sensors (inside-out tracking) which Vive Cosmos has. Plus, if you happen to use a software that takes eyes movement as an input, Vive Pro Eye got that covered.

When we are talking about price tag, however, Vive Pro is the most expensive out of all 3 options and that is not even including the wireless adapter or the eye tracking upgrade. Again, my choice would be Vive Pro Eye if price is not an issue.

AR Devices

Device/Feature	Unique Features	Type	Year Released
Vuzix Blade	– Quad-core ARM CPU – 8 Megapixel camera – Android OS – Head motion trackers – Touch pad – Wi-fi compatible – Voice commands and control – Haptic vibration alerts – 19 degrees to 28 degrees FOV – 2-2.5 hours of battery life	Smartglasses	2019
Wayray Navion	– SLAM capability – 4G connection – 30ft distance to virtual image – Advanced inertial sensors and GPS – 8 degrees x 4 degrees FOV	Holographic navigation system for cars	TBD
Apple ARKit 3	– 2D and 3D object detection and tracking – Plane detection – Face detection – Light Estimation – SLAM capability	Smartphone AR SDK	2019

First of all, I would like to say that AR devices that exist in the present come in various forms and purposes (smartglasses, projector, AR SDK kits, etc.), so it is harder for me to decide which one I like as each of them may excel in their own field. But for smartglasses, Vuzix Blade is up there on my personal preference.

Vuzix blade, for example, is very similar to the predecessor of AR smartglasses, which is Google Glass. It works just like Google Glass, in essence it is a smartphone in form of a pair of glasses. But instead of the information being displayed on a smartphone screen, it is all displayed on your glasses screen. Notifications, calls, messages, taking photos or even yelp review when looking at a restaurant. Notable improvement from Google Glass such as the design: Vuzix Blade design is a huge step up from Google Glass. Google Glass design is widely criticized due to making the wearer looks goofy. However, Vuzix Blade looks just like any other trendy glasses. It is hard to tell if they are actually a pair of smartglasses unless someone takes a closer look.

Unfortunately there is an inconvenient downside of Vuzix Blade. They do not have speakers, so you have to use the Bluetooth function to pair it with your smartphone or Bluetooth headset when calling someone or listening to Alexa’s feedbacks.

Wayray Navion is another interesting and unique AR device for me, as it is a holographic AR navigation system used for cars by projecting layers of information to the car windshield. Some of the features are displaying speedometer, additional UI to warn the driver of an incoming pedestrian crossing the street, GPS system (routes and directions), and building identification.

MR Devices

Device/Feature	Unique Features	Minimum Requirements	Type	Year Released
Microsoft Hololens 2	– Untethered – 52 degrees FOV – Wi-fi compatible – Flip-up visor design – 8 Megapixel camera – Eye tracking – Built-in speakers – Voice commands and control – 6DOF controllers – Qualcomm Snapdragon 850 – 4GB RAM – 2-3 hours of battery life	None	Head-mounted display	TBD (limited release in 2019)
Magic Leap 1	– 40 degrees FOV – Wi-fi compatible – 128GB storage – 3.5 hours of battery life – Haptic vibration feedback – Eye tracking – Voice commands and control – NVIDIA Parker SOC, 2 Denver 2.0 64-bit cores + 4 ARM Cortex A57 64-bit cores – NVIDIA Pascal, 256 CUDA cores Graphic GPU – 8GB RAM – 128GB storage capacity – 6DOF controllers	None	Head-mounted display	2018 (beta version), officially released for enterprise in 2019
Varjo XR-1	– 2×12 Megapixel cameras – Eye tracking – Tethered – 87 degree FOV -Photorealistic virtual objects	Intel Core i7-7820X , NVIDIA GeForce® RTX 2080 Ti, or NVIDIA Quadro RTX 6000, 32GB RAM	Head-mounted display	2019

There are not a lot of true MR devices existing in the public. Windows Mixed Reality devices, for example, are classified as VR headsets even though they have mixed reality as parts of the name. For MR category, my choice of device would be Varjo XR-1. It has the features of switching from MR to fully VR easily, photorealistic virtual objects, a very wide FOV, and ultra low latency. Those are all the attributes needed for a MR device to create an immersive experience of mixed reality, and Varjo XR-1 has it all, of course, with a hefty price tag.

While Microsoft Hololens 2 and Magic Leap 1 project holographic objects (to which they do refer the virtual objects created by their respective devices as holograms) that are a little bit transparent (see-through), Varjo XR-1 offers a more immersive experience by rendering the objects to be solid and photorealistic. Not to mention, there is also a pretty crucial existing problem to Magic Leap 1. When virtual objects are approached and very short distance is left between them and the wearer, part of the objects are cut off from sight depending on how close you are. Personally, that would really decrease the immersion value by a lot, and there is also the hologram-like objects reducing more of the immersion.