Apoppin called it -Nvidia 3D displays at bestbuy

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Yeah, aint it great. you have a choice. When you invest your money in a open system you can actually use it if you change the gfx card to another vendor.

It is great. And when you go with one of the two vendors, you have one that can do everything the other can do, plus more of what only it can do.
You speak of choice as if you have none. Of course you do. You could choose to have less, or more.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
It is great. And when you go with one of the two vendors, you have one that can do everything the other can do, plus more of what only it can do.
You speak of choice as if you have none. Of course you do. You could choose to have less, or more.

Your definition of "more" is being locked to one vendor. Which is fine for you, since you get free hardware, other people might prefer the option to pick from either company going forward with their product choices.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
Your definition of "more" is being locked to one vendor. Which is fine for you, since you get free hardware, other people might prefer the option to pick from either company going forward with their product choices.

I get free GPU's but I also buy Nvidia GPU's. I just bought 2x GTX460's. But that isn't any of your business nor should it be a factor in this discussion. You're under the assumption that the only reason I use Nvidia is because I get free GPU's? Is that how it was before I was getting GPU's? You answer for me Lonyo.

Now, back to the actual topic? My definition of more is the appropriate one. One vendor (Nvidia) can do everything the other can do (AMD), but you can't reverse that sentiment. Still going for AMD? Well, if you are one to support a company solely because it's the underdog, then I suppose you are actually limiting your own choices by design. Not that there is any sort of shortage of choices. It is so strange for one to hate something that offers more just because the one who you WANT to offer it, doesn't. So weird it goes against nature.
 

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,170
13
81
It is great. And when you go with one of the two vendors, you have one that can do everything the other can do, plus more of what only it can do.
You speak of choice as if you have none. Of course you do. You could choose to have less, or more.
You're absolutely right. If somebody with an Nvidia video card chooses to purchase a complete Nvidia 3D system and later decides to switch to an AMD video card, they'll definitely be seeing less 3D than if they had originally gone with the AMD 3D system. They'll be seeing absolutely nothing.

Nvidia has effectively become the Apple of the video card industry with its continual efforts to keep everything tied to their own hardware (3D Vision, PhysX, in-game AA, etc).
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
I get free GPU's but I also buy Nvidia GPU's. I just bought 2x GTX460's. But that isn't any of your business nor should it be a factor in this discussion. You're under the assumption that the only reason I use Nvidia is because I get free GPU's? Is that how it was before I was getting GPU's? You answer for me Lonyo.

Now, back to the actual topic? My definition of more is the appropriate one. One vendor (Nvidia) can do everything the other can do (AMD), but you can't reverse that sentiment. Still going for AMD? Well, if you are one to support a company solely because it's the underdog, then I suppose you are actually limiting your own choices by design. Not that there is any sort of shortage of choices. It is so strange for one to hate something that offers more just because the one who you WANT to offer it, doesn't. So weird it goes against nature.
Back in the day, an iPod could play all the mp3s I download from Amazon/etc, but it could also play content purchased from iTunes.
Another mp3 player from another company couldn't, so the iPod offered me more than the competitor, and I was limiting my choices by not getting an iPod.

Of course, once I decide to change my portable music player, I now have lots of money invested in something I can't use unless I continue to buy the brand I started with.
I limited my choices by purchasing the "better" product (better by virtue of offering more). Now I'm stuck with iPods or losing all my music, so my choice has suddenly become limited by picking the option which didn't limit my choices.

Of course, that assumes that I purchase the NV 3D stuff, rather than something vendor neutral. But then if I'm avoiding buying the NV specific 3D, then there's no benefit from this added option and both choices become equally appealing.
So either you want to get NV and be locked to NV, or you want to get something open and it makes no difference to your purchasing decisions, but that gives me only the choice of being locked in, or not being locked in, which is why I would rather not be locked in, which is in fact the "natural" choice.
That doesn't mean NV is bad, it just means that vendor specific elements lose meaning, and so NV doesn't offer "more" for me.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
You're absolutely right. If somebody with an Nvidia video card chooses to purchase a complete Nvidia 3D system and later decides to switch to an AMD video card, they'll definitely be seeing less 3D than if they had originally gone with the AMD 3D system. They'll be seeing absolutely nothing.

Nvidia has effectively become the Apple of the video card industry with its continual efforts to keep everything tied to their own hardware (3D Vision, PhysX, in-game AA, etc).

Why are you blaming NVIDIA for AMD's lack of features/support? :hmm:

Cart before horse...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Back in the day, an iPod could play all the mp3s I download from Amazon/etc, but it could also play content purchased from iTunes.
Another mp3 player from another company couldn't, so the iPod offered me more than the competitor, and I was limiting my choices by not getting an iPod.

Of course, once I decide to change my portable music player, I now have lots of money invested in something I can't use unless I continue to buy the brand I started with.
I limited my choices by purchasing the "better" product (better by virtue of offering more). Now I'm stuck with iPods or losing all my music, so my choice has suddenly become limited by picking the option which didn't limit my choices.

Of course, that assumes that I purchase the NV 3D stuff, rather than something vendor neutral. But then if I'm avoiding buying the NV specific 3D, then there's no benefit from this added option and both choices become equally appealing.
So either you want to get NV and be locked to NV, or you want to get something open and it makes no difference to your purchasing decisions, but that gives me only the choice of being locked in, or not being locked in, which is why I would rather not be locked in, which is in fact the "natural" choice.
That doesn't mean NV is bad, it just means that vendor specific elements lose meaning, and so NV doesn't offer "more" for me.

Do you avoid GM because they provide a car + onstar? Poor Chrysler! These are called value adds. Somehow value adds with some people are considered "bad". Why? I suspect it is soley because of their dislike for the company providing the value add. The list is becoming hilariously stupid as well.

People dont like

PhysX
3d
Cuda
AA in DX9 titles
Higher default texture filtering

At some point people have to look in the mirror and ask themselves. When is my favorite underdog company going to get off their ass and close the feature gap so I can stop complaining about these features I like but dont like?

And I dont really like the iPod analogy. The iPod didnt provide anything superior to other players when it came to playing MP3s, or MP3s from iTunes. I stayed away from Apple for that very reason. Nvidia providing these list of features above what AMD provides are actually benefits. Apple's product provided no such benefits. And MP3 sounded just as good on a competitors player.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Do you avoid

Who said anything about avoiding?
I just said the value add has no meaning, and explained why, because it leads to vendor lock-in.
I didn't say avoid products because of the value add, I just said that for me the value add isn't a factor because I don't like what it ends up doing, it doesn't add any value.

Equally, OnStar (based on what Wikipedia says) is part of the car. 3D isn't part of the card. You need a monitor and glasses as well. When you sell the car, you sell all the components of it (including OnStar). It's a value-add feature which comes as part of the car.

When you want to go the NV 3D Vision route, you need a monitor which supports it, and the NV 3D glasses (AFAIK). When you move on, you usually don't sell your graphics card + monitor + 3D glasses and buy a completely new set, you keep the same monitor and glasses. If they only work with one vendor, then the value of these products is lost, and you need to replace them, costing you money (where's the value in that?).

Also I pointed out how iTunes was a value-add, at least back in the day, it was the largest music store with the greatest selection of music easily available to download. How is that not a value add over the competition?
Now you could argue the value-add is through the iTunes app store (for the iPod Touch).
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
You're absolutely right. If somebody with an Nvidia video card chooses to purchase a complete Nvidia 3D system and later decides to switch to an AMD video card, they'll definitely be seeing less 3D than if they had originally gone with the AMD 3D system. They'll be seeing absolutely nothing.

Nvidia has effectively become the Apple of the video card industry with its continual efforts to keep everything tied to their own hardware (3D Vision, PhysX, in-game AA, etc).

It's just like EyeFinity with AMD; it was tied to their hardware. There was nothing stopping nVidia for trying to offer something similar -- and they did.

It's just like MLAA with AMD; it is tied to their hardware. There is nothing stopping nVidia for offering the feature.

AMD can do the same things as nVidia -- there is no one stopping them except AMD.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
When you want to go the NV 3D Vision route, you need a monitor which supports it, and the NV 3D glasses (AFAIK). When you move on, you usually don't sell your graphics card + monitor + 3D glasses and buy a completely new set, you keep the same monitor and glasses. If they only work with one vendor, then the value of these products is lost, and you need to replace them, costing you money (where's the value in that?).

That is why the HDMI 1.4a standard is welcomed. It allows displays not to be locked to only one vendor, or vendor glasses.
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
Yeah, aint it great. you have a choice. When you invest your money in a open system you can actually use it if you change the gfx card to another vendor.
What is so open when it is my money you are talking about? I can purchase Nvidia 3d vision and go with my Nvidia video card, or I can purchase a 3d kit from a 3rd party vendor and go with my Nvidia video card. What is the difference? Yes if I have brought from a 3rd party vendor I will no longer be limited to Nvidia video card, but wait a minute, what if something goes wrong?

You don't have the experience, but most wow player with 3d have. Nvidia decided to roll out a new set of drivers that broke modded UI in WoW. Now what? Those who have experienced the problem will know the name Andrew Fear, someone who works for Nvidia and keep QQers in Nvidia's forum calm. Yes, the issue took about half year to resolve. Many have stuck with older 3d drivers or tweaked the game and the driver to make things work mean while, but Nvidia 3d vision user knows where to look for solutions.

Let say you are on AMD with a 3D middleware and things broke after a new cat 10.50, where will you go for help? Is it the middleware? The game? or AMD?

Nvidia graded the quality of games that supports 3d. If a game is graded "3d ready" but in fact isn't, waves of people will filled Nvidia's forum and start QQ. This is stupid as it generates unnecessary hate and work, but Nvidia is still doing it. Why? Well they offer customer service and will fix problems as they see it on their product. These is what a 3rd party vendors do not offer as they do not have control over video card drivers.

I will say this upfront. AMD will not support 3d anywhere near good as Nvidia, they simply cannot. They don't have control over the 3rd party, or I should say, they don't care. If 3d broke with AMD video card, then the problem is on the 3rd party vendor as they are responsible to their product. The same argument can be used on Nvidia+3rd party, but Nvidia is responsible for Nvidia 3d vision.

Remember, shall your AMD+3D kit fail to perform or breaks for whatever reason, AMD is not responsible. You can thank AMD.

Your definition of "more" is being locked to one vendor. Which is fine for you, since you get free hardware, other people might prefer the option to pick from either company going forward with their product choices.
To begin, the word "lock" is not an appropriate word in this content. "Support" is a better word. Nvidia 3d vision, cuda, and physX are all supported by Nvidia, and AMD does not support them. It is as simple as this.

The word "lock" in such content is introduced by AMD's PR. Different hardwares have different drivers. There are universal drivers(which in AMD's terminology, is open), but usually they won't be able to utilize special features. I can't expect a driver from Cannon works on Brother's printer as bother has their own driver. Cannon's driver/software doesn't lock brother's hardware. Cannon's driver/software doesn't support brother's hardware. Do not be confused.
 
Last edited:

Creig

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,170
13
81
It's just like EyeFinity with AMD; it was tied to their hardware.
No, it's not just like EyeFinity. It's not even close. EyeFinity requires hardware within the video card in order to function. Nvidia's Vision 3D, PhysX and the in-game AA in Batman:AA are (or were) all artificially limited to either work only Nvidia hardware or, in the case of PhysX, in a system with no AMD video card installed. These items could just as easily have been made to work on any system regardless of the brand of video card contained within.


AMD can do the same things as nVidia -- there is no one stopping them except AMD.
You mean, tie everything to their own hardware? Yes, they could. But they've stated several times that they will not because doing so would only be to the detriment of the gaming community at large.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
lmao you believe that? Detriment to the gaming community by not having features that are supported? Come on, lets not buy into that line of crap. AMD just doesnt want to support those features because it costs money to do so. So they will offer them but require 3rd parties pony of the cash to support them. Little surprise Nvidia leads AMD in features and support from developers. Have to spend money to have support for your technology.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
No, it's not just like EyeFinity. It's not even close. EyeFinity requires hardware within the video card in order to function. Nvidia's Vision 3D, PhysX and the in-game AA in Batman:AA are (or were) all artificially limited to either work only Nvidia hardware or, in the case of PhysX, in a system with no AMD video card installed. These items could just as easily have been made to work on any system regardless of the brand of video card contained within.

Sure it is. It was a feature that offered differentiation over nVidia for some time and AMD's PR was all over it. If nVidia didn't spend resources themselves they could be at a competitive disadvantage.

Where we differ is I applaud IHV's that try to differentiate because it brings awareness and new gaming experience choice to the consumer now in times that are not ideal. Through the chaos, fragmentation and division that is proprietary features or differentiation, there is welcomed choice, innovation and competition, that hopefully brings awareness that may forge standards to make things more ideal for more customers. It is this differentiation that forces competition and innovation. I don't allow idealism to be the enemy of good.
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
No, it's not just like EyeFinity. It's not even close. EyeFinity requires hardware within the video card in order to function. Nvidia's Vision 3D, PhysX and the in-game AA in Batman:AA are (or were) all artificially limited to either work only Nvidia hardware or, in the case of PhysX, in a system with no AMD video card installed. These items could just as easily have been made to work on any system regardless of the brand of video card contained within.
The bolded statement is false. First, PhysX is a physics engine that runs on CPU. It does not require any Nvidia product to run. Second, Nvidia video card can offload PhysX from CPU onto its GPU, reducing the load on CPU. Third, AMD video card does not support PhysX. Fourth, Nvidia's video card will not offload PhysX from CPU when AMD video card is present. Nvidia's video card is not designed as a Physics Processing Unit, but a video card that can act as one under the correct configuration. Mix video card is not a correct configuration.

You mean, tie everything to their own hardware? Yes, they could. But they've stated several times that they will not because doing so would only be to the detriment of the gaming community at large.
Does Eyefinity works on Nvidia video card? You can give me the reason why it won't work, but the answer is no. The only feature that is exclusively from AMD is not open. Game on!
 
Last edited:

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
The bolded statement is false. First, PhysX is a physics engine that runs on CPU. It does not require any Nvidia product to run. Second, Nvidia video card can offload PhysX from CPU onto its GPU, reducing the load on CPU. Third, AMD video card does not support PhysX. Fourth, Nvidia's video card will not offload PhysX from CPU when AMD video card is present. Nvidia's video card is not designed as a Physics Processing Unit, but a video card that can act as one under the correct configuration. Mix video card is not a correct configuration.

You are simply wrong.
nVidia drivers come with DRM that will disable GPU physX ON NVIDIA GPUS if an AMD GPU is detected in the system even for a mere AMD IGP.

In windows 7, you can have AMD and nVidia GPUs working side by side, so a system with an AMD HD5870 and an nvidia GTX460 could run physX on the GTX460 GPU while rendering the DX stuff on the 5870, but nvidia's DRM stops it from doing so, there ARE hacked drivers that have the DRM removed, and there have been progressively more severe measures by nvidia to stop that (ex, checks to see if it was cracked are embedded such that they are only triggered in specific games and then inverse the gravity so you fall into the sky). There is absolutely NOTHING "incorrect" about this configuration. nvidia GPUs can run as a dedicated physX card just fine if an nvidia card is doing the DX processing, they are fully capable of running C code and have no problem doing nothing but rendering physX

nvidia once accidently released a beta driver (258 IIRC) without the DRM by accident as well.

The DRM is actually worse then the above, if you have an AMD graphics chipset then physX on GPU is also disabled, so a system with a phenom x6 with an IGP AND a GTX580, where logically the GTX580 will handle all DX calls in a game AND physX on GPU, well the physX on GPU is disabled because an AMD GPU was detected (the IGP)
 
Last edited:

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
You are simply wrong.
nVidia drivers come with DRM that will disable GPU physX ON NVIDIA GPUS if an AMD GPU is detected in the system even for a mere AMD IGP.

In windows 7, you can have AMD and nVidia GPUs working side by side, so a system with an AMD HD5870 and an nvidia GTX460 could run physX on the GTX460 GPU while rendering the DX stuff on the 5870, but nvidia's DRM stops it from doing so, there ARE hacked drivers that have the DRM removed, and there have been progressively more severe measures by nvidia to stop that (ex, checks to see if it was cracked are embedded such that they are only triggered in specific games and then inverse the gravity so you fall into the sky). There is absolutely NOTHING "incorrect" about this configuration. nvidia GPUs can run as a dedicated physX card just fine if an nvidia card is doing the DX processing, they are fully capable of running C code and have no problem doing nothing but rendering physX

nvidia once accidently released a beta driver (258 IIRC) without the DRM by accident as well.

The DRM is actually worse then the above, if you have an AMD graphics chipset then physX on GPU is also disabled, so a system with a phenom x6 with an IGP AND a GTX580, where logically the GTX580 will handle all DX calls in a game AND physX on GPU, well the physX on GPU is disabled because an AMD GPU was detected (the IGP)
Read what you quoted next time.
 

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
Nvidia has introduced 3dtvplay that allows users of Nvidia gpu's and 3dvision kits to use Nvidia gpu's to play 3d movies and games using the televisions own 3d glasses.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3dtv-play.html
Thats more functions that AMD can only promise but never deliver, or find a way to actually implement.

3DTV sales to more than double in 2011

3D hardware for the home has been doing well at retail; year one adoption of 3DTV is running at a far quicker rate in most territories than it did for high definition, bolstered by 3DTV prices falling by close to 40 percent in some cases, according to Futuresource Consulting. Furthermore, the company predicts global sales of 3DTVs will exceed 4 million this year: 1.2 million 3DTVs will be sold in Western Europe alone, rising to more than 3 million in 2011. In the US, it expects more than 5 million 3DTVs to be sold next year.
For those that go on about 3d has been here before and its no more 'happening' now, than in the past, how many millions of 3d televisions were sold before 2010 ?
 
Last edited:

notty22

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2010
3,375
0
0
can't wait till this 3d fad goes away
I can't wait until its more mainstream and affordable.
I was a early adopter of HD Sony Plasma in 2004 , it was over 3000 dollars. Now its about 350.00 - That level of infiltration, probably won't happen as much or fast, but it might :)
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
I tried 3D at the Fry's NV display many times.. it's no good. Your car pops off the screen a little bit.. amazing. For many people, it will also give you a headache and leave you crosseyed.
 
Last edited:

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
I get free GPU's but I also buy Nvidia GPU's. I just bought 2x GTX460's. But that isn't any of your business nor should it be a factor in this discussion. You're under the assumption that the only reason I use Nvidia is because I get free GPU's? Is that how it was before I was getting GPU's? You answer for me Lonyo.

Now, back to the actual topic? My definition of more is the appropriate one. One vendor (Nvidia) can do everything the other can do (AMD), but you can't reverse that sentiment. Still going for AMD? Well, if you are one to support a company solely because it's the underdog, then I suppose you are actually limiting your own choices by design. Not that there is any sort of shortage of choices. It is so strange for one to hate something that offers more just because the one who you WANT to offer it, doesn't. So weird it goes against nature.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion. AMD has had better performance per watt for a long time now, the 5870 is still amazingly efficient. Also AMD has had HDMI Audio since the 4870, I think NV just got that with the 580 release. I don't think even the uber expensive 580 has triple monitor support on 1 card either.
Compared to Physx (which IMO is the new EAX*), the AMD product is the better choice right now and IMO since the 4870, and hands down since the 5800 launch.

*the gimmick Soundblaster crap people have -finally- gave up on thinking they want, which was also vendor locked.
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
can't wait till this 3d fad goes away

Actually like to see it evolve and mature to levels where there isn't a need for eye wear. To a point, where it doesn't cost anything more, limitations solved with a massive amount of content, and simply a choice for anyone.
 

taltamir

Lifer
Mar 21, 2004
13,576
6
76
Read what you quoted next time.

i have, he said physX is limited to work only in systems without an AMD card installed, you said he is wrong (which is wrong) then added "Mix video card is not a correct configuration." which is also wrong. And I explained why
 

Seero

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2009
1,456
0
0
I tried 3D at the Fry's NV display many times.. it's no good. Your car pops off the screen a little bit.. amazing. For many people, it will also give you a headache and leave you crosseyed.
Turn your head away from the monitor and your eyes will cross automatically depending on where you are looking. Your 2 eyes are suppose to be able to focus on objects in a 3d world. That is why you have 2 eyes. In fact, if you keep your monitor 2 feet away from you, then your eyes will be focused 2 feet away from you. With 3D display, since objects are further into the screen, your eyes actually cross less.

As to headache, do you really thing people are suffering from it while playing in 3D? I had headache the first day, which will went away after sleep but not again.