3D Vision Surround Review

[Wreckage]

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18298

When set up that way, I was surprised to learn, 3D Vision Surround can be pretty darned effective. Nvidia was using a racing game in its main demo (not sure which game), and the sensation of depth across a wide display area gave it the feel of a simulator or some sort of high-end arcade outfit. I have been somewhat dubious about AMD's Eyefinity (although, I admit, I need to spend more time with it), in part because the presence of the display bezels tends to ruin the panoramic effect for me. But with the illusion of depth added to the mix, that problem seems to melt away. My visual system seems to filter out the bezels effortlessly, and one is left with the impression of simply looking through a window at a world of depth beyond. The illusion is more than the sum of its parts: better than panoramic displays or 3D Vision alone.

 

[lifeblood]

The flip side of the coin is this: AMD already has Eyefinity out in the market now, and it, too, was showing demos of 3D glasses-based gaming in its CES meeting area. Odds are AMD and Nvidia could converge on the same multi-display, depth-enhanced sort of offering within the next six months or so.

When both can support it then it will really take off. Hopefully they can agree on an open standard.

Kind of a bummer you need two nVidia cards for it. I wonder if ATI will be able to do 3 monitor 3D with only one card? I expect it can as it does 2D with six monitors.

 

[Daedalus685]

That isn't a review... at all...

At any rate, we all expect 3d to be the wave of the future I think.

I can't wait until they come out with something I can comfortably wear over my glasses... I suppose we will ahve to wait for teh display manufacturers to force that down the gpu vendor throats.. standard 3D vendor agnostic stuff by 2011 perhaps? I really don't see this kind of thing remaining on one company for much more than the second it becomes desired by Joe computer buyer. Much Like support for LCD displays.

 

[Daedalus685]

When both can support it then it will really take off. Hopefully they can agree on an open standard.

Kind of a bummer you need two nVidia cards for it. I wonder if ATI will be able to do 3 monitor 3D with only one card? I expect it can as it does 2D with six monitors.

It will be an open standard rather quickly I think.. there is no point in makign a slew of incompatable things.. peripheral companies don't want that garbage. Besides.. you can't easily patent 3D any more than you can patent 2D.. The only current way to do it is to give each eye an image.. I can count on my hand the possible ways of doing that and they only differ at the display level.. the GPU still has to produce the same scene at different perspectives.

 

[Seero]

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/18298

There is a downside to 3D surround. First pushing 3 monitors is hard, pushing it so that each of them produce 120 FPS is crazy. Once 3D is on, effective FPS will automatically drops to 60FPS. Yes the tax may not be as high, but 30% is a minimum charge. So to be able to have effective 40FPS, the video card must be able to push 60FPS towards 3 LCDs. I doubt that a single GT card is strong enough. Having one card for the center screen while having another to push the other 2 is a good solution, but that means 2 GT100!

A user can use 3 22" 60Hz LCD for Eyefinity, about 150 each, so 300 bucks to add another 2. Vision 3D surround on the other hand, requires 120Hz LCD, which is 250 each, and you can't recycle your existing one if it isn't 60 Hz, that is 750 bucks, not including the glasses, which is 250 each. 1k in total.

So the visual setup from ATI cost about 1k, where 3D adds another 1k.

That isn't the problem, but the technology is still new and reports of ghosting is everywhere. A lot of reports complaining that the top 5-10% of the screen is not 3D at all. Now it appears 120" Hz LCD have problems discharging at the edge of the screen, I don't know, but it will suck hard to spend 1k more just to see double images.

 

[PingviN]

"I came away thinking that 3D Vision Surround might actually be an attractive alternative to what AMD now offers with Eyefinity. After all, if you're going to go to the trouble of buying three 1080p displays and creating space for them in front of your computer, adding the 3D glasses and additional GPU horsepower doesn't seem like a major added expense or hassle."

Is he for real?

 

[lifeblood]

but the technology is still new and reports of ghosting is everywhere. A lot of reports complaining that the top 5-10% of the screen is not 3D at all.

I've worked a bit with 3D, both on PC's, movies, and paper, and I never see 3D near the edges. Maybe it's me and my eyes, but maybe it's that human eyes can't see the 3D if it's to near the 2D edge.

Either way, it will definitely be fun watching (pun intended) this technology sort itself out.

 

[lifeblood]

"I came away thinking that 3D Vision Surround might actually be an attractive alternative to what AMD now offers with Eyefinity. After all, if you're going to go to the trouble of buying three 1080p displays and creating space for them in front of your computer, adding the 3D glasses and additional GPU horsepower doesn't seem like a major added expense or hassle."

Is he for real?

I think he forgot the price difference between 60Hz and 120Hz monitors, as well as the second video card. As Seero pointed out, it's not as easy as the author makes it out to be.

 

[Seero]

I've worked a bit with 3D, both on PC's, movies, and paper, and I never see 3D near the edges. Maybe it's me and my eyes, but maybe it's that human eyes can't see the 3D if it's to near the 2D edge.

Either way, it will definitely be fun watching (pun intended) this technology sort itself out.

I have no problem seeing 3D near edges in cinema. Not that I paid attention to it.

 

[SirPauly]

There is a downside to 3D surround. First pushing 3 monitors is hard, pushing it so that each of them produce 120 FPS is crazy. Once 3D is on, effective FPS will automatically drops to 60FPS. Yes the tax may not be as high, but 30% is a minimum charge. So to be able to have effective 40FPS, the video card must be able to push 60FPS towards 3 LCDs. I doubt that a single GT card is strong enough. Having one card for the center screen while having another to push the other 2 is a good solution, but that means 2 GT100!

A user can use 3 22" 60Hz LCD for Eyefinity, about 150 each, so 300 bucks to add another 2. Vision 3D surround on the other hand, requires 120Hz LCD, which is 250 each, and you can't recycle your existing one if it isn't 60 Hz, that is 750 bucks, not including the glasses, which is 250 each. 1k in total.

So the visual setup from ATI cost about 1k, where 3D adds another 1k.

That isn't the problem, but the technology is still new and reports of ghosting is everywhere. A lot of reports complaining that the top 5-10% of the screen is not 3D at all. Now it appears 120" Hz LCD have problems discharging at the edge of the screen, I don't know, but it will suck hard to spend 1k more just to see double images.

There are always downsides having cool stuff but one doesn't have to go 3d but 2d if they desire, from my understanding -- so if a GTX-260 Sli owner has a 22" monitor can buy two cheap 2D monitors and have surround gaming with a future driver, from my understanding. Imagine that -- having surround gaming for 300 dollars for some gamers?

Over-all, for me, it's a great thing to see multi-monitor gaming offered by ATI and in due time, from nVidia, both with pros-and-cons.

 

[Qbah]

How did they solve the fact that the glasses are forward looking only? When you're doing Eyefinity, the monitors are placed in a way that they cover also your peripheral vision. Add 3D glasses and they need to cover the same span too... If you back away from the screen, what's the use of having such a spanned view in the first place? It won't cover side views. The picture from that link shows some regular glasses that definitely don't cover sides. So?

In theory it sounds very nice - a full covered view of the in-game world all in 3D = awesome. But I just don't see how they can do it. Either you sit up close and the glasses don't cover the sides or you sit further away and such a setup is wasted as you can see the room anyway.

 

[PingviN]

I think he forgot the price difference between 60Hz and 120Hz monitors, as well as the second video card. As Seero pointed out, it's not as easy as the author makes it out to be.

Yes, I figured as much. 3D Vision is nice, but it's too pricey, at least for now.

 

[soccerballtux]

AMD would love to make a standard of it, but as usual Nvidia will insist on using their proprietary standard and won't let anybody play along.

 

[Wreckage]

AMD would love to make a standard of it, but as usual Nvidia will insist on using their proprietary standard and won't let anybody play along.

Well maybe they should start leading for once, instead of waiting for everyone else to do the work.

At least it looks like NVIDIA's 3 monitor solution will work without displayport and on older cards. Which is a huge bonus to anyone who would want such a thing.

 

[Seero]

AMD would love to make a standard of it, but as usual Nvidia will insist on using their proprietary standard and won't let anybody play along.

Ah...well...Sony, Panasonic, Mitsubishi, Toshiba even Intel can make 3D...

 

[gorobei]

I think he forgot the price difference between 60Hz and 120Hz monitors, as well as the second video card. As Seero pointed out, it's not as easy as the author makes it out to be.

yeah, it's not a review. more of an initial impression.

there's also the part about how all the monitors have to be lined up parallel to each other, or the 3d has perspective problems. so no angling the side monitors to avoid TN panel viewing angle color shift.

or the part about how the 3d glasses block out peripheral vision so you are forced to turn your head.

also his price evaluation is majorly flawed.
22" 16x10 60hz cheap TN monitor ~$130 ( x3 = ~$400 w/dport adapter)
22" 16x10 120hz monitor ~ $330 retail. ( x 3 = ~$1000)
23" 1080 NEC e-ips w/pivot stand~ $330 ( x 3 = ~$1000)
24" 1080 TN 120hz from asus maybe $500[guess] ( x3 = ~$1500)
24" 19x12 ips dell 2410 ~$500 on sale ( x3 = ~$1500)
2nd GFcard + SLI motherboard + 3d glasses = ~$600
the cost of 1080 120hz goes way beyond cheap TN 60hz(entry level) and even the NEC e-ips to some degree given the stand and input features on the nec. The main issue being that even at 120hz you are still stuck with a cheap TN panel with bad view angles and inability to do portrait mode well or at all. Unless MS starts getting into 3d aero interfaces with some sort of non-novelty benefit, 120hz monitors just dont appeal that much.

Though the math changes a little when eyefinity6 comes out. i.e. 5 or 6 monitors. But that would also mean 3 GFcards and a 3 slot SLI motherboard for the equivalent NV setup.

 

[Phynaz]

At least it looks like NVIDIA's 3 monitor solution will work without displayport and on older cards. Which is a huge bonus to anyone who would want such a thing.

Which older cards can push two HD displays at 120hz?

Another useless feature from Nvidia.

 

[PingviN]

Well maybe they should start leading for once, instead of waiting for everyone else to do the work.

You don't actually believe Nvidia was first up with "3D", do you?

 

[at80eighty]

aaaand another thread where the shill gets a beat down. who cares about numbers amirite?

 

[Lonyo]

You don't actually believe Nvidia was first up with "3D", do you?

But they were.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/elsa-revelator.html
A review from 1999 of 3D glasses which only work with NV! NV were clearly first (please ignore the comments about a different set of 3D glasses which predated these and only worked with 3DFX, because NV now own 3DFX, so they could as being NV glasses/3D).


The fact that 3D has been around for over a decade and still hasn't taken off brings into question whether anyone cares yet.
For all certain peoples harping on about how only NV has 3D, does anyone really care?
3D still isn't popular after 10 years, and maybe it will suddenly change now, but going on and on about it like it's the next big thing when it's taken 10 years to go nowhere seems a little silly to me.

 

[lopri]

And you'll need to have two high-end Nvidia graphics cards, either based on the upcoming GF100 GPU or the current GTX 200 series, because neither generation of GPU can drive more than two displays simultaneously.

Apparently Fermi can't do more than 2 displays. Looks like ForceWare is doing the syncing between two cards.

 

[WelshBloke]

When both can support it then it will really take off. Hopefully they can agree on an open standard.

Kind of a bummer you need two nVidia cards for it. I wonder if ATI will be able to do 3 monitor 3D with only one card? I expect it can as it does 2D with six monitors.

I'd imagine its just the number of outputs on the back of the card that makes you need two NV cards, if they are serious about this they will support it on one card in the future.

3D and eyefinity shouldn't really need open standards, they arn't that complicated to start with.

I would have thought it would slightly defeat the purpose of 3D having a very wide screen res (3*24" monitors), if you have to keep turning your head to get the 3d effect you may as well have one big monitor.

Anyway hopefully by the time there are affordable 120hz big monitors the wrinkles of both 3D and eyfinity will be sorted out and they will be supported by both companies.

 

[SirPauly]

Which older cards can push two HD displays at 120hz?

Another useless feature from Nvidia.

Amazing, why does it have to be only 120hz monitors?

 

[WelshBloke]

Amazing, why does it have to be only 120hz monitors?

3D needs 120hz. Alternate frames are sent to each eye so if you start with 120hz you'll get 60hz effective, if you start with 60hz your head explodes.

 

[SirPauly]

3D needs 120hz. Alternate frames are sent to each eye so if you start with 120hz you'll get 60hz effective, if you start with 60hz your head explodes.

But their surround view doesn't force just 120hz 3d stereo gaming and if an owner chooses may use 2d gaming, too, with 60hz monitors -- that was my point.