Dual Screen Decisions: Big LCD, or time for 3D?

[thepcphysician]

Hello everyone,

I currently have dual-monitor setup with a Hannspree 28" 1920x1200 as my primary and a Samsung 20" 1600x1200 in portrait orientation as my secondary. Sadly, my Samsung is on its way out, so it's time for a new monitor.

My initial thought was to get a second 28" Hannspree, since I'd get identical color properties and I wouldn't have to deal with annoying resolution scaling and different panel heights when I drag a window from one screen to the next. However, I'm starting to consider getting a 22 or 23 inch 120hz LCD instead, with a 3d vision kit from nVidia. I have 2 GTX 480s in SLI, so it's definitely tempting...

The second 28" would cost me $275-$300, and the 22"-23" 3D monitor with the glasses kit would set me back almost $400. I'm having a hard time justifying an extra $100 for a significantly smaller panel, especially when I don't know if 3D gaming (or at least nVidia's present version) is a gimmicky, headache inducing fad that will leave me with a fancy monitor and few games to use it with. So, what would you do? Is 3D worth it?

 

[VeryCharBroiled]

I game in 3D with nvidia 3DTVPlay, 2 GTX 285s in SLI on a samsung 46" LCD 3D TV with the TVs glasses. I only had to buy the software for $30.

it works well. most games should run in 3D to varying extents.. the ones designed for 3D need no tweaks, some that are not need settings changed (like turning off an effect that doesnt render right, spoiling the games visuals). nvidia maintains a list of games at the 3DTV play site, and the software has the recommended game setting (if needed) and will inform you if a game is not recommended.

of 3 games Ive tried so far, 2 run fine (far cry 2, dirt 3), one needs to much stuff turned off to be worth it (dirt 2). havent had a chance to move my other games over to the nvidia rig.

as to being worth it to game in 3D, that depends. it help with the immersion into the game world of course. far cry 2 looks stunning but being in 3D doesnt really add to the game play. I think most FPS games will be like that. racing games though.. now we're talking. having true depth is awesome for judging corners, passing etc. it really makes the game more fun in a big way.

BTW I dont get headaches with games, I think the main reason some movies (and not others) induce headaches is the 3D was done poorly. visual clues and the displays depth dont jive, and the brain doesnt like it (thats just my opinion ). games dont seem to have that problem.

basically Im sold on 3D gaming. even when it doesnt doesnt improve gameplay per se (and it can), it still helps draw you into the game.

 

[apoppin]

i'm working on a 80 game evaluation of 3D Vision and S3D right now.

First of all, there are real advantages to a 120Hz display for a gamer that plays fast paced shooters - anyway. And they are now about $200 for a 3D Vision ready 22" screen to over $600 for 27" display.

Once you have a 120Hz display, it is about $80 for a pair of wired 3D Vision glasses.
- yes, i would say it is worth it for most people

i replayed and *enjoyed* games that i would never replay otherwise - even played a couple that i set down originally as boring (Jericho). S3D *adds* to the game experience in many cases.

The downside is fatigue. i turn off S3D after an hour of play and return to 2D for awhile in really extended (4-6 hour) gaming sessions. Fortunately, you just press a button on the emitter and take off the glasses.

Using a big screen S3D HDTV means lower frame rates - but you get a much bigger screen - and with S3D you do want the biggest you can afford.

 

[beany323]

any recommended good size monitors that run 120hz. Looking at some...

i was hoping for something bigger then 27.. still trying to decide...

 

[beany323]

read some reviews on the acer 27.. Almost costs as much as a 40 in sony 3d.. scary..