Nvidia Announces 3D Vision 2 With New Hardware

[dconnors]

Nvidia is refreshing its popular 3D entertainment platform, now with bigger monitors and brighter screens!

Nvidia Announces 3D Vision 2 With New Hardware : Read more

 

[Guest]

cool

 

[Jerky_san]

Gotta say I'll never buy another set of these things again. Have a 3d projector and nvidia supports the projector but the drivers never actually identify it. Then after you hack a drive up to make it work.. it isn't even 3d..

 

[hp79]

120 fps would be sweet playing TF2. Doesn't the current 3D monitors (120 Hz) already support that? When I play games, I really miss the old days 19" CRT monitor.

 

[CKKwan]

I am more interested in getting something like what Sony has. Where the glasses come with two screens (left and right), instead of using polaroids or shutters.

 

[mrmaia]

Can't wait to check out what Nvidia will throw at our faces, at 120 Hertz.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

No-no-no. nVidia, wrong... we want new GPUs (AMD already announced theirs), not 3D.

 

[IzzyCraft]

Now only if i was rich enough to spend 3k+ on a rig and monitors

 

[mayankleoboy1]

i safely assume 90% of toms readers are not interested in 3d gaming. we wouild have liked another perky article to freshen us up on slow monday mornings

 

[upgrade_1977]

Awesome!! Can't wait, now just have to find some side jobs and find a buyer for my 24".

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]hp79[/nom]120 fps would be sweet playing TF2. Doesn't the current 3D monitors (120 Hz) already support that? When I play games, I really miss the old days 19" CRT monitor.[/citation]

Ya, they do. I think they were just trying to point out that nothing is lost.

 

[ohim]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]No-no-no. nVidia, wrong... we want new GPUs (AMD already announced theirs), not 3D.[/citation]
though i prefere amd over nvidia (even if i have an nvidia card because of Adobe and premiere pro ) i don`t really see the need of a new gpu whem my GTX 465 still holds good in Crysis with ultra detalis at full HD res. guess the GTX 5xx series is still good enough for what software is out there. Seems lately the software kinda lags behind the hardware since the bulldozer graphs clearly shows that software is not really multicore aware and even computer graphics are kinda behind the hardware. So i`m kinda ok with them researching other things about graphics like 3D which .... an industry that needs serious improvements.

 

[scrumworks]

Wow! This is big news! News of the century. Nvidias new nerd glasses!

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]though i prefere amd over nvidia (even if i have an nvidia card because of Adobe and premiere pro ) i don`t really see the need of a new gpu whem my GTX 465 still holds good in Crysis with ultra detalis at full HD res. guess the GTX 5xx series is still good enough for what software is out there. Seems lately the software kinda lags behind the hardware since the bulldozer graphs clearly shows that software is not really multicore aware and even computer graphics are kinda behind the hardware. So i`m kinda ok with them researching other things about graphics like 3D which .... an industry that needs serious improvements.[/citation]

its allot like the cpu. we will always be able to use more, just because consumers dont need it doesnt mean that there arent hundreds of thousands of applications for the hardware consumers dont get. and the good part is, when the pro hardware gets a bump, so does the consumer side.

right now with games, faster gpu means next to nothing.
look at battle field 3 or hacked crysis demo.
with crysis they hacked it and got the highest setting on dx9 and it looked exactly like dx10, next to no difference
and battlefield 3, what i played of the beta on my brothers computer, and keep in mind, i don't know if ANY of the graphics setting made a difference on the pc because i cant tell, but with what they were set at, i couldn't see a reason they couldn't have used dx9 and supported everyone with a pc who games.

the next real leap in graphics isnt going to be pushing more pollys, or higher res textures, because right now, if a game has 4 million pollys or 8 million, we cant really see a difference, and on the pc, unless you walk into a wall and are looking for poor textures, they don't exist any more. the next leap will be tessellation, and right now its still in its infancy. i mean look at the tech demos, once those go into real time game play, in a significant way, such as the the one nvidia demo were the sculpture is really only 20 pollies but gets expanded to 10000 or something insane with tessellation.

till that hits in a significant way (look at crysis 2, half the tessellation shots i had to be told what changed, because its so minimal) we will get little refreshes in hardware that make them more powerfull but not realy seeing a difference except frame rates.

 

[Guest]

The BF3 BETA wasn't DX11, it was kept at DX10 and with strong compression on textures. The graphics at DX11 would not be possible to do with DX9.

 

[hetneo]

I think that Nvidia should start releasing info about their new line of GPUs and would like to hear that GPGPU capabilities are harnessed to unload work from CPU and thus moving up the point where CPU bottlenecks GPU performance. This would be great news for tens of millions budget limited people. This kind of things are completely irrelevant for gross majority of people. Firstly because 3D capable rigs are way out of their budgets. Secondly because human brain and eye physiology anything above 32fps is unnoticeable performance gain unless there is some micro stuttering which causes frames to stick for more than 1/24 sec, which is the limit of discerning individual frames.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]hetneo[/nom]I think that Nvidia should start releasing info about their new line of GPUs and would like to hear that GPGPU capabilities are harnessed to unload work from CPU and thus moving up the point where CPU bottlenecks GPU performance. This would be great news for tens of millions budget limited people. This kind of things are completely irrelevant for gross majority of people. Firstly because 3D capable rigs are way out of their budgets. Secondly because human brain and eye physiology anything above 32fps is unnoticeable performance gain unless there is some micro stuttering which causes frames to stick for more than 1/24 sec, which is the limit of discerning individual frames.[/citation]

3D rigs are not expensive today. $400-700 for monitor + glasses depending on the size of the monitor. 1155 mobo, 2500k OCed to 4.0+ ghz, 8Gb of ram, 2x 480s or 570s ($600 worth of GPU), case, PSU, hard drive. That's Full system with monitor and glasses for about $1500 (That's less then the average joe worker gets on a damn tax return lol). That's NOT an expensive system. If you had to buy a decent HDTV + PS3 or Xbox when it came out that was well over $1000 with controllers and accessories and TV and people bought those up like crazy.

Also, PC parts can be bought in parts and upgraded as you go. PC gaming in 3D is a very affordable option today. Don't dismiss it. (There is a reason why Nvidia is paying 3D so much attention, it's obviously profitable)

 

[youssef 2010]

It's nice to finally see Nvidia learning from AMD in terms of Backward compatibility. Can't wait to see 3D vision available w/o SLI

 

[jamie_1318]

3D vision does not require SLI. "3D vision surround" requires SLI. What I want to see run on a single Nvidia card is 3 screens. Not entirely sure why that hasn't been enabled yet.

 

[airborne11b]

[citation][nom]jamie_1318[/nom]3D vision does not require SLI. "3D vision surround" requires SLI. What I want to see run on a single Nvidia card is 3 screens. Not entirely sure why that hasn't been enabled yet.[/citation]

Single nvidia cards can push 3 screens. Problem is that just about any new game at max resolution + max settings x 3 is going to crush single card solutions. Grab up a single 480 or 580 GTX, you can run 3x L4D or COD MW2 screens no problem. Crysis2, Metro 2033, BF3... not a chance.

If you count 590 as a "single card" then yes that could do it just fine. Where have you been? lol.

 

[airborne11b]

Correction. Thought you were talking about performance. Yes you need SLI (590 is exeption) to run 3x monitors. Question is why would you want to? Ever try running 3 monitors with single card from ATI? Talk about bad FPS in just about every new game.

SLI / Crossfire is pretty much required for decent high-res framerates.

 

[mm0ety]

This 3d stuff couldn't be good for your brain in long gaming sessions. I'd rather sit comfortably for a good few hours than to pay a little extra money for 3d.

 

[dlpatague]

[citation][nom]mm0ety[/nom]This 3d stuff couldn't be good for your brain in long gaming sessions. I'd rather sit comfortably for a good few hours than to pay a little extra money for 3d.[/citation]

I agree. 3D is lame and long term use will be bad for you especially young children. Your eyes aren't meant for it. The way your eyes, or mind rather, makes 3D happen in real life is by using shadows.

Some guy at this TV store tried to sell me on 3D HDTVs and I just laughed at him. Then he tried to bring up watching a movie in 3D at the movies like Transformers. I did regrettably go see Transformers: DOTM in IMAX 3D and hated every minute of it. Will never watch a 3D movie again. And in no way will I ever game in 3D. Not to mention having to wear annoying glasses.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]Single nvidia cards can push 3 screens. Problem is that just about any new game at max resolution + max settings x 3 is going to crush single card solutions. Grab up a single 480 or 580 GTX, you can run 3x L4D or COD MW2 screens no problem. Crysis2, Metro 2033, BF3... not a chance.If you count 590 as a "single card" then yes that could do it just fine. Where have you been? lol.[/citation]

2D surround and 3D surround both require SLI, but it can be a single SLI card, like the 295 and 590.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]dlpatague[/nom]I agree. 3D is lame and long term use will be bad for you especially young children. Your eyes aren't meant for it. The way your eyes, or mind rather, makes 3D happen in real life is by using shadows. Some guy at this TV store tried to sell me on 3D HDTVs and I just laughed at him. Then he tried to bring up watching a movie in 3D at the movies like Transformers. I did regrettably go see Transformers: DOTM in IMAX 3D and hated every minute of it. Will never watch a 3D movie again. And in no way will I ever game in 3D. Not to mention having to wear annoying glasses.[/citation]

We have 2 eyes because we use binocular vision. We don't judge depth primarily by shadows, we judge depth by how our eyes align on an object, which is EXACTLY the same way 3D vision works. Both eyes will point at an object, because they are separated by a couple inches, they will point inward at different angles to achieve this. That is what 3D vision does. It causes your eyes to angle the same exact way we do in real life. If you ever try to focus on an object right in front of your nose, for example, you go cross eyed. (This cross-eyed effect can be problematic with 3D vision, because sometimes they screw up the depth and it causes your eyes to go cross-eyed in the extreme. This is likely why it's not advised for kids. It's not because 3D vision doesn't work, it's because the games have bugs).

The only thing that 3D vision is not able to emulate, at least not at this time, is how the individual eye focuses on those images. We do judge by shadowing as well, but that's 2ndary, and 3D vision adjust shadows based on your perspective as well, so that's not different either.