Stereo Shoot-Out: Nvidia's New 3D Vision 2 Vs. AMD's HD3D

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would appear that virtual 3D mode takes a lot less power to render a single image and extrapolate the other eyes image than it is to render two images independently in normal mode. This appears to be the only reason it does compete without crossfire support. This is both good and bad. It works in almost all situations, but never at great visual quality.

I'd also like to point out that the lack of AA is not a big deal in 3D. I find I don't notice the same issues without AA in 3D. When the mind fuses two images together, it's not as bothered by AA.
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
466
0
18,790
4
[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]IMO, 3D is still not as appealing and no as cheap as Eyefinity or 2D Vision Tri-Screen Gaming.[/citation]

I'm a fan of both 3x monitor set ups, but 3D is a lot cooler.

Problem with 3x monitors is the fish-eye effect that's very disturbing (and not fixable) in landscape mode. The best you can do with 3x monitors is use expensive 1920 x 1200 IPS monitors in portrait mode, but in this set up the bezels are normally cutting right through game HUDs / hotkey bars and puts the bezels far too close to your center of view.

Further more, for this kind of Eyefinity/Nvidia surround monitor set up, costs about $1200 - $1500. (Or even more expensive projector set ups that require a ton of space and cost as much or more if you want to try and get rid of the bezels)

Now consider Nvidia 3D. It adds amazing depth and realism to the games over 2D, doesn't have a negitive "fish eye effect", no bezels to deal with, same GPU power requirements as 3x monitors (or less), doesn't interrupt game huds or hotbars and only costs about $600-700 for the most expensive 27" screen + glasses combos. (even cheaper with smaller monitors.

The clear choice is 3D imo.

But 3x monitors is still much better then single 2D monitor. I rocked 5760 x 1080 in BFBC2, Aion and L4D for a long time :p.

3D is cooler though.
 

billcat479

Distinguished
Mar 19, 2006
74
0
18,630
0
It seems people don't follow the news on this area very much. It's not sounding all that great.
I guess most people haven't read that people using 3D tv's have been getting headaches and it's not a few but a lot of people.
They should have left it in the theaters.
I wouldn't be surprised to find if and when they do a good long term study of people using them long term in gaming start to have long term medical problems if or when they get around to doing good studies on the topic. I have read enough to stay away from this 3D glasses hardware. At best I'd only use it very little and for short term use.
They really do need to do medical testing on this because people are being effected by prolonged use of 3D glasses with tv. Add all day video gaming and I think there is a possibility small or large of long term or perm. damage to people. They dumped this on the market pretty fast without doing any studies that I know of but with the amount of people showing headaches I think it is getting more attention or should damm well start checking out the possibility of any chance of eye damage or worse.
Eyesight is pretty useful.
If they ever get a holographic display then I'd be into it.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
@billcat
So shutter tech which has been around some 15 years is dangerous, but holographic tech which isn't really available yet would be good? I would think you would want to exercise caution with any new optical tech. Personally I am allergic to the laser-to-eye theory of hologram tech.

As for the article, it was a great review! Looks like the tech is still too high end for my budget, but I am sure they will iron out all the kinks by the time I am ready to replace my monitor (which wont be soon as I love the thing). I am really curious about how the next gen graphics cards will improve in this area! Cant wait for those reviews!
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
466
0
18,790
4
[citation][nom]billcat479[/nom]It seems people don't follow the news on this area very much. It's not sounding all that great. I guess most people haven't read that people using 3D tv's have been getting headaches and it's not a few but a lot of people. They should have left it in the theaters. I wouldn't be surprised to find if and when they do a good long term study of people using them long term in gaming start to have long term medical problems if or when they get around to doing good studies on the topic. I have read enough to stay away from this 3D glasses hardware. At best I'd only use it very little and for short term use. They really do need to do medical testing on this because people are being effected by prolonged use of 3D glasses with tv. Add all day video gaming and I think there is a possibility small or large of long term or perm. damage to people. They dumped this on the market pretty fast without doing any studies that I know of but with the amount of people showing headaches I think it is getting more attention or should damm well start checking out the possibility of any chance of eye damage or worse. Eyesight is pretty useful. If they ever get a holographic display then I'd be into it.[/citation]

This is the kind of uninformed, ignorant posts that irritate me. Interweb wanna be docs who don't know how the human body works. Allow me to educate you.

People used to say that "reading a book in the dark" or watching TV or normal PC monitor "too close" would "damage your eyes". In fact we know today that eye sight degeneration has a few factors, none of which are from normal straining.

The most common cause of eye sight degeneration is Presbyopia (from the normal aging process, where the lens progressively loses its capacity to increase its power for near vision)

Also, UV rays degenerate tissue so it's recommended you way UV protective sunglasses when outside in daylight. UV rays can cause your eyesight to weaken over time.

Also refractive error(Common in people ALL ages): A condition may be either because the eye is too short or long in length, or because the cornea or lens does not have the required refractive power. There are three types of refractive errors which are Myopia (near-sight), Hypermetropia (long-sight) and Astigmatism which is the condition where the eye does not focus the light evenly, usually due to the cornea of the eye being more curved in one direction than the other. It may occur on its own or may be associated with myopia or hypermetropia.

The very worst thing that 3D vision can do in terms of negitive health effects, is the same EXACT effects of reading too much, IE; an extremely short term headache. To cure the headache TAKE A BREAK.

Also, as you build tolerance to 3D vision (As I have just after a week or 2 of consistent use) the headaches go away. Also Nvidia 3D settings allow you to adjust the depth of the 3D, less depth = less strain and you can progressively increase 3D as you build tolerance to the use of 3D monitors.

In closing, don't post nonsense about what you don't understand. It makes you look stupid.
 

oneseraph

Distinguished
Oct 12, 2008
7
0
18,510
0
I normally don't chime in however in this case I just have to say "Who Cares"? Every time I see an article about 3D graphics and 3D display tech there are always excuses for the technology not being ready. Did I misunderstand or did this article point out that neither Nvidia or AMD have a ready for prime time product. So why are they releasing this crap to us consumers and calling it a feature? When the truth is it Tech that still belongs in the lab. Come on, if you bought a blender that would blend strawberries but would not work if you put bananas in it you not only return the item but in all likelihood there would be a class action suite against the manufacturer. In short for right now 3D is just not ready. The marketing departments of both Nvidia and AMD are being more than a little dishonest about they're respective 3D features. There are lots of good reasons to buy a new graphics card. Just don't be fooled into thinking that 3D is one of them.
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
466
0
18,790
4
[citation][nom]oneseraph[/nom]I normally don't chime in however in this case I just have to say "Who Cares"? Every time I see an article about 3D graphics and 3D display tech there are always excuses for the technology not being ready. Did I misunderstand or did this article point out that neither Nvidia or AMD have a ready for prime time product. So why are they releasing this crap to us consumers and calling it a feature? When the truth is it Tech that still belongs in the lab. Come on, if you bought a blender that would blend strawberries but would not work if you put bananas in it you not only return the item but in all likelihood there would be a class action suite against the manufacturer. In short for right now 3D is just not ready. The marketing departments of both Nvidia and AMD are being more than a little dishonest about they're respective 3D features. There are lots of good reasons to buy a new graphics card. Just don't be fooled into thinking that 3D is one of them.[/citation]

Point of the article *Had you read the original Nvidia 3D VS AMD HD3D article*, was that Nvidia version 1 was much better then ATI HD3D.

Then if you read this article, Nvidia 3D version 2 addresses the couple downfalls that people didn't like with version 1 (IE they made the screen much brighter in 3D mode, improved crosstalk / ghosting *which was hard to notice already in some games with good settings on the monitor* and made the glasses more comfortable to wear and use).

I have nvidia 3D and it's one of the great reasons to own Nvidia. 3D looks amazing and works with just about every title you throw at it right out of the box.

It's beyond ready for prime time. Has been for a while and now it just got even better.

So why do you think otherwise? Did you have a bad 3D experience with AMD/ATI?

ATI is notorius for bad driver/software support. Their Eyefinity was horrible for a long time after launch, where Nvidia's Surround worked upon release great. ATI's simple stuff *Like drivers for their GPUs* is even too hard for them to get right. *Google Rage ATI*.

It doesn't suprise me that you don't give ATI a lot of hope in the 3D department.

Give the new Nvidia 3D Vision 2 a try if you ever see it in person, you'll see just how much better it is to AMD's junk.
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
466
0
18,790
4


Monitor with glasses is only about $700 the 27" top of the line monitors. (can get smaller cheaper ones)

Then a System to run it well on max settings is about $900 - $1200 (For full system). Even less if you can scrape old parts from old PC (Case, PSU, HDD, fans, DVD rom)

Not bad if you ask me.
 

Badelhas

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2011
112
0
18,690
2
[citation][nom]billcat479[/nom]It seems people don't follow the news on this area very much. It's not sounding all that great.I guess most people haven't read that people using 3D tv's have been getting headaches and it's not a few but a lot of people. They should have left it in the theaters. I wouldn't be surprised to find if and when they do a good long term study of people using them long term in gaming start to have long term medical problems if or when they get around to doing good studies on the topic. I have read enough to stay away from this 3D glasses hardware. At best I'd only use it very little and for short term use.They really do need to do medical testing on this because people are being effected by prolonged use of 3D glasses with tv. Add all day video gaming and I think there is a possibility small or large of long term or perm. damage to people. They dumped this on the market pretty fast without doing any studies that I know of but with the amount of people showing headaches I think it is getting more attention or should damm well start checking out the possibility of any chance of eye damage or worse.Eyesight is pretty useful.If they ever get a holographic display then I'd be into it.[/citation]

This is so not true. My best friend is a Optometrist, practicing for many years now, and he tells me that people who have headaches in 3D movies have a problem with their focus hability, that is easily treatable with some theraphy exercises. They should go to the optomestrist or oftamologist to treat it, thats all. I agree with airborne11b, that kind of remarks are not necessary. And they are normally made by people who has problems or even never tried 3D.
 

Badelhas

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2011
112
0
18,690
2
And by the way: thanks Tom´s Hardware for being the first to benchmark 3D Vision at 720p resolution! I just bought a 3D Vision compatible 720p projector (Benq W700) to watch movies and game with 3D Vision but didnt know what graphic card(s) I should buy. Ended up buying 2 Gtx 570 to work in SLI, I wanted to play with everything maxed out, including AA, at 60fps, so I now now I should be able to! :)
I am, however, kind of sad to know that with just one 6970 I would be able to have a nice experience at that resolution...
 

airborne11b

Distinguished
Jul 6, 2008
466
0
18,790
4
[citation][nom]bADELHAS[/nom]This is so not true. My best friend is a Optometrist, practicing for many years now, and he tells me that people who have headaches in 3D movies have a problem with their focus hability, that is easily treatable with some theraphy exercises. They should go to the optomestrist or oftamologist to treat it, thats all. I agree with airborne11b, that kind of remarks are not necessary. And they are normally made by people who has problems or even never tried 3D.[/citation]

Right you are. Some people have to "adjust" to using 3D electronics. Some people sit through whole 3D movies and don't even report strain or headaches. Some people do. I myself found 3D movies to have zero effect on my eyes. I had zero headaches or any noticeable fatigue.

3D vision however, when set to 100% caused me eyes to feel tired after a few hours of non-stop use. Turning down the 3D depth to 50% made 3D vision 100% natural feeling (like using a normal monitor) Over the next week or so I slowly increased depth level back to 100% and now I play at 100% with no strain, fatigue or headaches.

It's just something that takes getting used to before it feels 100% natural and as I already stated, the 3D depth slider allows you to adjust the image to suite your current comfort level.

Steroscopic 3D is one of the best improvements to PC gaming in years (I'd also say multi monitor gaming was a great addition to PC games).

It's not every day PC technology really makes a noticeable difference in our gaming experience and 3D vision is by far one of the largest leaps forward in electronic entertainment.

The funny thing is that most people knock 3D vision (or even 3x monitor gaming) before they try it, as if they're a subject matter expert because they went and saw "INSERT RANDOM 3D MOVIE" with 80 cent plastic 3D glasses on a movie theater projector.

 

marraco

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2007
671
0
18,990
1
I just want the ghost reducing technology to be used to reduce blurring without 3D.

I own a 120Mhz monitor, and it is not free of ghosting, even without 3D.
 
[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]I just want the ghost reducing technology to be used to reduce blurring without 3D.I own a 120Mhz monitor, and it is not free of ghosting, even without 3D.[/citation]

I own one that has no ghosting without 3D vision. With 3D vision, there is a little where there is a lot of contrast. This actually is more about the glasses allowing light to bleed into the lens even when blackened.
 

torque79

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2006
440
0
18,780
0
No thank you to shutter glasses. I will say I've only tried it once so far in a mall demo, but on that LG TV on their own demo material I could clearly see flickering images using the shutter glasses. It was horribly distracting to the depth of the image. Plus i could only see decent depth on a few of the demo images (which were all still images).

I'll wait for polarized lenses (which should have been the initial technology anyways in my opinion... I mean battery powered flickering shutter glasses?? come on!), or glasses-free, which ever one looks better. NO interest in this "beta" 3d garbage being sold right now.
 

CaedenV

Splendid
[citation][nom]torque79[/nom]No thank you to shutter glasses. I will say I've only tried it once so far in a mall demo, but on that LG TV on their own demo material I could clearly see flickering images using the shutter glasses. It was horribly distracting to the depth of the image. Plus i could only see decent depth on a few of the demo images (which were all still images).I'll wait for polarized lenses (which should have been the initial technology anyways in my opinion... I mean battery powered flickering shutter glasses?? come on!), or glasses-free, which ever one looks better. NO interest in this "beta" 3d garbage being sold right now.[/citation]
I tried a demo at Fry's over a year ago and found the expierence to be very cool and immersive. Granted they were playing the origonal spore on a pimped out rig to keep the frame rate high enough to not be a problem. But as the cards get faster, and 3D becomes a more central feature, we will be able to play higher end games on cheaper cards in the future.

Also, I am still not convinced 3D will really make a big break until it can become glasses free, with a wide enough angle for 3+ people to watch without smelling each-other, and drastically drops in price. But I am more and more convinced that day is coming as the 3D 'fad' has lingered a bit longer than expected.
 

shadyinc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2011
9
0
18,510
0
Yes, nVidia's solution is better, but don't discount the fact that It is can be used in SLI config..!
AMD 6970 has VERY decent performance with a single card, in a few cases similar to GTX580 in SLI, otherwise generally lying between GTX570 and 580..!
The only problem i see with the AMD solution is that is is TOOoooo inconsistent..!
(sic!!!)
:(
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Dirt 3, first benchmark: 6790 and 6970 should switch places! Right now 6790 is performing 5 times as good as the 6970 Fix that, please.[/citation]

They're in the correct places, read the accompanying text before posting please! ;)
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Moderator
[citation][nom]airborne11b[/nom]I didn't see any mention of crosstalk *3D GHOSTING* in this article.[/citation]

I would have spent more time on ghosting/crosstalk if I saw any. The ASUS 3D Vision 2 monitor didn't show us any; then again, the Acer 3D Vision 1 monitor we have doesn't have ghosting problems, either. Unfortunately, this problem has more to do with individual monitor models than it does with 3D Vision as a whole, so it's best to check out 3D on whatever monitor you are thinking of buying first.

I did mention that we sometimes experienced a glitch on the Samsung display where it would suffer from ghosting until the video input was switched back and forth. That's an irritation but easily fixable with the workaround, and as far as ghosting is concerned it works just as good as the 3D Vision 2 monitor when this issue is addressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS