Oculus Quest vs Oculus Rift S Virtual Reality Technical Comparison

If you have decided to buy a virtual reality system , Oculus is surely one of the first manufacturers that will come to mind. However, within the company there are different models to choose from, each with its own pros and cons, so to get you out of doubt, below we are going to carry out a technical comparison between the Oculus Quest and Oculus Rift S virtual reality systems, to try to find out not only which is the better of the two, but which one best suits your needs.

There is no doubt that both devices that we are going to buy today are excellent choices, but the reality is that technically they have their differences that, whatever the redundancy, make the difference. Likewise, there is a notable price difference between the two, and for sample purposes and as a reference here you can see the prices on Amazon Spain:

Oculus Quest vs Oculus Rift S

So, let’s proceed with the technical comparison between the Oculus Quest and the Oculus Rift S to see which of the two best suits what you need.

Oculust Quest vs Oculus Rift S: technical characteristics

Oculus Rift S Oculus Quest
Resolution 2560×1440 2880×1600
Technology LCD OLED
Refresh rate 80 Hz 72 Hz
IPD software Handbook
Audio Integrated 3.5mm jack Integrated 3.5mm jack
Tracking Oculus Insight
5 sensors
Oculus Insight
4 sensors
Drivers Touch Touch
Cable 5 meters
DisplayPort 1.2
USB-A 3.0
Not
Price (MRSP) 399 euros 399 euros

Right off the bat, we can see that the Oculus Quest not only have a higher resolution than the Oculus Rift S, but also use OLED technology on the screen compared to the LCD technology of the Rift S. Of course, the Rift S win. As for the refresh rate of the screen, since it is 80 Hz compared to 72 Hz that the screens of the Oculus Quest have. If we have to declare a winner in this area, we are left with the Quests for the higher resolution and display technology at the cost of having a slightly less refresh rate.

Both virtual reality systems have integrated audio, and a 3.5mm minijack jack for external headphones if you like. As for the sensors, both are equipped with the Oculus Insight system, but the Rift S win the game because they have an additional sensor, so the precision of the movements will be greater. By the way, they both use the same drivers so we found fairness in this regard.

Where we find the fundamental difference between both systems is in the connection mode; Rift S need a PC to be able to work, with their IPD managed by software, so they will always be dependent on this. For their part, the Quests do not depend on anything and, in fact, have internal memory (there are 64 and 128 GB versions at the moment) so they are much more “portable”. They are equipped with a Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 processor , which obviously will not give the same performance as a gaming PC. So, with the Quest we gain portability but we lose performance , and therefore we must declare the Oculus Rift S winners.

As you can see, despite being two quite similar virtual reality systems, they actually have a very different background. While with the Oculus Rift S we have a complete virtual reality system for PCs, with the Oculus Quest we have virtual reality anywhere, but at the cost of having a considerably lower performance. Therefore, each type of device is designed for a different type of user, and unfortunately you will have to choose between better performance or greater portability.

Which of the two is more recommended to buy?

As we have already seen, it depends on the type of use you want to give it. If you intend to have the best virtual reality experience on PC then you should choose the Oculus Rift S, but if you prefer portability at the cost of not having the best performance, then the Quests will be the option that best suits your needs.

Both are excellent virtual reality systems, but if we had to choose the best of the two, we would stick with the Rift S precisely for performance, because after all it is a term directly linked to having a better reality experience. virtual.