>>> 1280 * 800/(3840 * 2160)

0.12345679012345678

Assuming ideal scaling with resolution, this should be similar (or better) in terms of performance as playing in 4k on 2080

Sure, but that is not what I meant.

> I wonder what this might mean for the Valve Index.

-> Could this somehow lead to a standalone Valve VR headset at least just as good as the Vive?

The Index has a 1440 x 1600 resolution per eye, at 120Hz.

By your own calculation, that means

>>> 1440 * 1600 * 2 / (3840 / 2160)

0.55

So, if I follow correctly, 10x less performance for half the number of pixels, meaning 5x worse than playing in 4k on a 2080?

Which means that embedding this specific hardware in an Index absolutely wouldn’t do the job.

Correct?

Of course, if you want to compare, compare to other embedded hardware on the market like the Quest 2, it probably beats it quite handily.

Probably. And reframing it that way would make sense, for some people. But it’s not what I was interested in when looking into it.

My question was "Could this lead to some improvements on the best experience I’ve had so far in VR?"

Not "What does this mean for devices I have never cared for?"

But I definitely see your point; it’s just not what I am interested in ¯\_(ツ)_/¯