Pimax Crystal Super: New Flagship VR Headset With Enormous Resolution Unveiled

Pimax-Crystal-Super-Unveil.jpg
Images: Pimax
The high-end VR market has a new competitor: The Pimax Crystal Super is the new flagship of the manufacturer - with impressive specs.

UPDATED NOVEMBER 22, 2024, 11:56 UTC

With the Crystal Light, Pimax has already brought a more affordable version of its Crystal VR headset to the market recently - now, the next step is taken in the opposite reaction. The Pimax Crystal Super is supposed to be the new flagship of the company's HMDs. And for good reason, judging from the specs.

High-Res QLED Panels​

One of the most important features in a VR headset that sim racers always look for is clarity. The Crystal and Crystal light already ensure that this is not an issue with their 2880x2880 resolution for each eye, but the Crystal Super tops this considerably: The QLED panels have a resolution of 3840x3840 per eye, with a pixel density of 57 PPD. Coupled with glass aspheric lenses and a large 120-degree FOV plus local dimming, this sounds like a very promising step for visuals.

Pimax-Crystal-Super-Specs.jpg


However, more resolution, and doubly so since the panels for both eyes went up, of course, also means more hardware resources are needed. Current-gen GPUs are not at a level where they could max out games on most lower-level headsets, so the specs may sound nice - but are they too much?

Certainly, without the use of certain tools. And the Crystal Super has a number of them on board. The headset comes with eye tracking, dynamic foveated rendering and upscaling - the latter is particularly important for gaining FPS, as users of OpenXR Toolkit will know. Potentially shimmering edges, as they often appear when using upscaling, are supposed to be combated by the pixel density of the Crystal Super so "users can disable or reduce anti-aliasing", according to Pimax.

Another important area that Pimax tackles with the Crystal Super is its size. Both the Crystal and Crystal Light, while visually impressive, are quite big, and for longer endurance racing sessions, this could be an issue for some. The Crystal Super, meanwhile, sports an exterior that has been reduced in size by about 30%, according to Pimax. It also comes with the top-of-the-head Comfort Strap that is also available as an add-on for other headsets.

Pimax-Crystal-Super-Pricing.jpg


Pimax Crystal Super Price​

Having initially been announced with a retail price of $1799, the Crystal Super will in fact launch with a slightly lower price tag at $1695. It will also possible to swap in a QLED or Micro-OLED panel, which will be available for pre-order in early 2025. The QLED panels will have a lower pixel density, but wider FOV at 135 degrees, for instance.

Pimax also introduces the Prime subscription model that allows users to pay for a headset monthly or in full up front, but also comes with more benefits. According to Pimax, these include the following:
  • Early access to new software features.
  • Exclusive invitations to members-only events.
  • Priority technical support, including remote 1-on-1 sessions.
  • Flexible returns for peace of mind.
  • More flexible payment options for the user.

How relevant these are for sim racers is up to the individual, of course. It appears that there is no option to buy the Crystal Super or Crystal Light without a Prime membership if you are ordering directly from Pimax, though - meaning an $11.99 membership fee over 24 months is also added to the total. Should you decide to also pay the membership fee up front, a 10% discount is applied.

Pre-orders for the Pimax Crystal Super are now open, and the headset is expected to start shipping in Q1 of 2025.

Has the Pimax Crystal Super piqued your interest? Let us know in the comments below and join the discussion in our hardware forum!
About author
Yannik Haustein
Lifelong motorsport enthusiast and sim racing aficionado, walking racing history encyclopedia.

Sim racing editor, streamer and one half of the SimRacing Buddies podcast (warning, German!).

Heel & Toe Gang 4 life :D

Comments

Premium
Yannik, para 2:
the opposite reaction
- direction?

On topic, a better, lighter headset is very welcome - even if I can't actually afford it :(
The more competition in the market the better, keep pushing the specs up - and hopefully the price will come down.
Maybe in a few years I'll be able to afford a used one - my Quest Pro is good enough to be competitive*, and that's all I can ask.

*As competitive as a crusty, half-blind old idiot is ever going to be, anyway.
 
What's the point in making a product that's impossible to be driven at full resolution and Hz and 99.9% of people couldn't afford (device & required system-wise)? Apparently they don't operate by market needs and just go full ham on extremes.

Still waiting for someone to do a VR headset that's: OLED, DisplayPort, Pancake lenses, decent but not overkill resolution (around 2.5k per eye), offers low and high Hz options, and doesn't need headstrap & face gasket mods to be tolerable. Whoever makes that will win VR on a commercial level.
 
Amazing next gen headset. Pimax did it again, I'm still happy with the Crystal but this looks very promising. I'm only disappointed that there's no lighthouse tracking at launch so I'm not buying it yet.
 
I still need to get around to selling my Pimax Crystal. It provides an amazing experience, but I just cannot get used to VR. From reaching for a mouse, fumbling around a keyboard, and since I like good audio, I always remove the factory VR headset headphones, meaning I have an audio headset on as well as the VR headset....we won't mention the cables as well.

Like I said, the Crystal provides an amazing experience, and this could be tempting to give it a go again, but I don't think I will since I feel the headset designs still have quite a way to go yet.
 
Good luck getting something like DCS World running at acceptable framerates with that, while still enjoying the resolutions that you bought that for.

Probably great for older games like Assetto Corsa if you have a 4090 or better.
 
What's the point in making a product that's impossible to be driven at full resolution and Hz and 99.9% of people couldn't afford (device & required system-wise)? Apparently they don't operate by market needs and just go full ham on extremes.

Still waiting for someone to do a VR headset that's: OLED, DisplayPort, Pancake lenses, decent but not overkill resolution (around 2.5k per eye), offers low and high Hz options, and doesn't need headstrap & face gasket mods to be tolerable. Whoever makes that will win VR on a commercial level.
A Quest3 with Pancakes costs around €500, and a very good, ultra-comfortable strap with battery costs €65 (battery not much use in PCVR link, but useful for Wifi or standalone use).

Once you've configured it properly with the Oculus Debug Tool (link 940 as the Encode Bitrate value, which is the most important (do a V control to paste in the number 940, which is too large for ODB, 500 max for Wifi), the fact that it's not DisplayPort doesn't really matter any more, the image is magical...

When it comes to simulating cars or planes, it's incredibly immersive, much more so than triple screens, which cost a lot more (let's not forget the systems for attaching them, which cost more than a helmet strap!

You think the new Pimax is too expensive, but you want a helmet that costs at least twice as much!
 
You think the new Pimax is too expensive, but you want a helmet that costs at least twice as much!
Not really - for example, if PSVR2 was slightly higher resolution and had pancake lenses that's be perfect for me which normally costs £530 (currently £340 on BF sale) so even if it was improved and sold for say £700-800 it'd still be half the price of this Pimax headset, not double.

I already have VR with my Reverb G2 which only cost me £180 (used on eBay) a year ago, which is still a decent headset (aside from its small sweet spot) and the Q3 isn't enough of an proportional upgrade to justify all its costs to me, hence why I chose to wait for a headset without compromise but isn't a ginormous and extreme device like anything from Pimax.
 
What's the point in making a product that's impossible to be driven at full resolution and Hz and 99.9% of people couldn't afford (device & required system-wise)? Apparently they don't operate by market needs and just go full ham on extremes.

Still waiting for someone to do a VR headset that's: OLED, DisplayPort, Pancake lenses, decent but not overkill resolution (around 2.5k per eye), offers low and high Hz options, and doesn't need headstrap & face gasket mods to be tolerable. Whoever makes that will win VR on a commercial level.
That's like you asking for an OLED 8K 85' TV at a reasonable price. That kind of combo does not and will NOT ever exist.
 
I don't know if I should upgrade my Pimax 5K Super to the 8K X (last revision w/ 120 Hz beta firmware) or Crystal Super 135 h.FOV version as a stop-gap to the 12K.

140 h.FOV - 130 absolute bare minimum - is the lowest h.FOV of a VR device I'm willing to accept as I personally think anything lower results in a gimmicky, toy-ish, "looking through a key-hole" experience.

I'm leaning towards a used 8K X but that 135 h.FOV Crystal Super sure is tempting.

What's the point in making a product that's impossible to be driven at full resolution and Hz and 99.9% of people couldn't afford (device & required system-wise)? Apparently they don't operate by market needs and just go full ham on extremes.
I'm able to use a 3090 and even my previous 2080 Ti at 90-160 Hz/fps with a 5K Super.

The Crystal Super is double the pixels of the 8K X. People have been using the 8K X with 3080s and onwards just fine for years. So such a wide range & adaptable amount of performance is available depending on game, game's gfx settings, and VR settings like resolution, upscaling, FOV, and Hz. Not to mention things like foveated rendering which are getting better and more supported (I've personally never used FR or even really looked into).

One of the beauties of VR is that any resolution "works" unlike regular monitors where you really only want to use it's native resolution or a 4x4, pixel-perfect version of it, eg. running 1080p on a 4K screen.
 
Last edited:
I'm able to use a 3090 and my previous 2080 Ti at 90-160 Hz/fps (depending on FOV/Hz setting) with a 5K Super.
Thanks for that info.

What resolution do you run that at though? More specifically, do you run / need to run at higher than native lens res due to lens barrel distortion compensation?

On my Reverb G2 which is 2160x2160 per eye (4320x2160 total) Steam VR runs games at 3152x3084 per eye (6304x3084 total) which is already huge - 2.34x that of 4K. So in order for my 3090 to have medium to high graphics in VR I have to run at 45fps motion reprojected to 90Hz (which I'm absolutely fine with).

I therefore can't see the maths working out of running significantly higher res and at double the Hz on the same GPU (without significant compromises). Not saying at all that I don't believe you, but the numbers don't add up in my head! "DDF Racer" Youtuber did a video about Pimax Crystal not long back and he had to run 50% resolution on his 3080 for it to be playable(?)
 

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
3 min read
Views
1,636
Comments
14
Last update

What are you planning to upgrade this Black friday?

  • PC

  • PC Hardware (ram, gpu etc)

  • More games (sims)

  • Wheel

  • Shifter

  • Brake pedals

  • Wheel, shifter and brake in bundle

  • Rig

  • Something else?


Results are only viewable after voting.
Back
Top