no LCD panels but there is a list of DLPs it works on also. I don't have any experience with the DLPs with it, but on the 22" LCDs I liked it, I too would prefer 24"+ 120hz LCDs, but there are options for much bigger screens.
no LCD panels but there is a list of DLPs it works on also. I don't have any experience with the DLPs with it, but on the 22" LCDs I liked it, I too would prefer 24"+ 120hz LCDs, but there are options for much bigger screens.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
Until display port becomes common I'll wait for multiple monitors. The cost right now for 3 monitors is too high and it is stupid to pay more for hardware that you will not have to pay for once display port is used. Not to mention the issue right now with having to make sure all monitors have the same settings, color, brightness, etc. another thing that display port removes.
SolMiester
Diamond Member
- Dec 19, 2004
- 5,330
- 17
- 76
So, 3dfx had dual card, then purchased by NV, copied by AMD\ATI
Matrox had triple monitors, AMD\ATI copied
NV created CUDA and GPU computering....AMD\ATI attempting to copy...LOL
I will have to go with 3DVision. Who has never played with it must not pass judgement. I play with the cheapest version, 3DVision Discover, on a 30" Dell display, with Red/Cyan glasses and the experience cannot be surpassed by 6, not 3 monitors. The colors are off, this is the only minus it has.
But, when you put the glasses on, it isolates you from the surroundings and the monitor is all you see. 100% immersion in games. For whatever reason, the monitor seems bigger while gaming with 3DVision. Also, the depth perception will give you the 3D feeling. When I turn the 3DVision off and take off the glasses, I feel like I'm playing a 2D game. I have no perception of depth and it looks like I'm moving a bitmap on top of another bitmap.
The 3DVision Discover experience is very much different than 3D cinema experience. 3D cinema seems like the action happens at the level of the screen and whatever comes towards you looks like it jumps from the screen and actually comes towards you.
With 3DVision Discover (i don't know about 3DVision & 120Hz monitor, never used it) it seems like the screen is a window and the action is inside it. When something flies towards you, it will stop at the window. It will give you the feeling that it's coming towards you, but not as much as in a 3D cinema.
But, when you put the glasses on, it isolates you from the surroundings and the monitor is all you see. 100% immersion in games. For whatever reason, the monitor seems bigger while gaming with 3DVision. Also, the depth perception will give you the 3D feeling. When I turn the 3DVision off and take off the glasses, I feel like I'm playing a 2D game. I have no perception of depth and it looks like I'm moving a bitmap on top of another bitmap.
The 3DVision Discover experience is very much different than 3D cinema experience. 3D cinema seems like the action happens at the level of the screen and whatever comes towards you looks like it jumps from the screen and actually comes towards you.
With 3DVision Discover (i don't know about 3DVision & 120Hz monitor, never used it) it seems like the screen is a window and the action is inside it. When something flies towards you, it will stop at the window. It will give you the feeling that it's coming towards you, but not as much as in a 3D cinema.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,003
- 126
I?m not sure why some are claiming Matrox?s solution is so great:
http://www.matrox.com/graphics...resolutions/#win_th2go
As you can see, the resolutions supported are piss-poor in size compared to ATi?s solution.
http://www.matrox.com/graphics...resolutions/#win_th2go
As you can see, the resolutions supported are piss-poor in size compared to ATi?s solution.
I noticed this too, for me too I am only comparing current 3D movies (Ice Age 3, Cloudy w/meatballs, etc) to my 3D computer experience from years ago (not with NV's 3D vision) but your observations are exactly true with mine.
Watching 3D in movie means things appear to happen in the space between your eyes and the screen. Watching 3D on a computer screen always appeared to me like things were happening inside a box that sat behind my computer screen. It didn't bother me, but I too made a mental note of the difference in perception.
Can anyone with kids and modern 3D Vision hardware comment?
Just an FYI, as a 2-monitor user for quite some time (mostly used for gaming in non-FPS style games where the bezel in the direct center isn't as big a deal as in FPS games) I can say that while I hesitated initially due to the bezel thing... you get used to it very quickly and the bezels don't even register in your brain.
I'm making no arguments one way or another, just stating my experience. I do like dual monitor, but don't think I have the room or the spare cash for a 3rd plus a 5870, so don't expect to move to eyefinity anytime in the foreseeable future.
All I want is a solution for 2560x1600 120Hz so I can get the full experience of 3DVision with shutter glasses. Not possible now due to bandwidth limitations on the DVI interface, but we will get there soon enough...
cbn
Lifer
- Mar 27, 2009
- 12,968
- 221
- 106
Eyefinity looks more interesting not only for desktop productivity but also for games.
Check out the upcoming Shattered Horizon by Futuremark. There are some teaser videos on You tube.
Something like that with optimized FOV would probably give players with multiple monitors a huge advantage (re: FPS combat takes place in zero gravity and jet packs/gravity boots let players attack from every angle)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...eature=player_embedded
Check out the upcoming Shattered Horizon by Futuremark. There are some teaser videos on You tube.
Something like that with optimized FOV would probably give players with multiple monitors a huge advantage (re: FPS combat takes place in zero gravity and jet packs/gravity boots let players attack from every angle)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...eature=player_embedded
gorobei
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 4,008
- 1,509
- 136
eyefinity offers way more for me.
3 monitors for CG animation and modeling, and general desktop workspace on a single card solution beats all. I'm currently using a dual 24 19x12 monitor setup right now, 1 more monitor in the center would make everything better. the triplehead2go doesnt support that kind of resolution (tops out at 16x10).
3 or 5 monitors for gaming would own any stereoscopic goggle nonsense. field of view is 10 times more important for FPShooters than some simulated depth perception. the ability to see a wider field allows you to:
1) use your natural peripheral vision and not have to constantly zag the mouse/camera around every 3 sec to do a crazy ivan just to check your flanks. less of the "blairwitch cameraman" nausea inducing effect.
2) reduce the amount of CQB merry go round as two players try to chase each other's tails with knives while effectively having to look through toilet paper roll tubes.
3) allow you to look where you will be going while taking a turn in a driving/flying simulator game. in flying games you need to be looking at what the other guy is doing, not looking boresight. a single monitor offers such a restricted view that when pulling turns in circle of death, the enemy will never be on the monitors field of view until he's already reversed his turn (which you wont see with a single monitor no matter how much simulated depth info it gives you) and zips past you before you can even respond.
a 5 monitor eyefinity in TF2 means as engy or sniper, a spy will never uncloak alongside you and be able to backstab you without you seeing him.
3 monitors for CG animation and modeling, and general desktop workspace on a single card solution beats all. I'm currently using a dual 24 19x12 monitor setup right now, 1 more monitor in the center would make everything better. the triplehead2go doesnt support that kind of resolution (tops out at 16x10).
3 or 5 monitors for gaming would own any stereoscopic goggle nonsense. field of view is 10 times more important for FPShooters than some simulated depth perception. the ability to see a wider field allows you to:
1) use your natural peripheral vision and not have to constantly zag the mouse/camera around every 3 sec to do a crazy ivan just to check your flanks. less of the "blairwitch cameraman" nausea inducing effect.
2) reduce the amount of CQB merry go round as two players try to chase each other's tails with knives while effectively having to look through toilet paper roll tubes.
3) allow you to look where you will be going while taking a turn in a driving/flying simulator game. in flying games you need to be looking at what the other guy is doing, not looking boresight. a single monitor offers such a restricted view that when pulling turns in circle of death, the enemy will never be on the monitors field of view until he's already reversed his turn (which you wont see with a single monitor no matter how much simulated depth info it gives you) and zips past you before you can even respond.
a 5 monitor eyefinity in TF2 means as engy or sniper, a spy will never uncloak alongside you and be able to backstab you without you seeing him.
While I agree that there is defiantly a use for Eyefinity, and that it would for sure help with gaming.
You saying that 3D Vision is "Nonsense" is irrational. To YOU, maybe you would prefer "Eyefinity" that doesn't mean that just because YOU consider "Eyefinity" better, doesn't mean that other people wouldn't like it.
But 3D Vision is not nonsense, it's a HUGE difference in gaming.
The way you talk about it is as if you think it's just silly.
Have you even tried it? 10 out of 10 times, anyone that has said something negative about it, hasn't even tried it.
and I would say 8/10 people that have ACTUALLY tried it, have nothing but positive to say about it.
You're bound to get the odd person that is negative towards it, you can't please everyone.
But since the concept of 3D Vision, is centered around the use of "Vision" people also need to take into consideration that they may have poor depth perception, and so it's not a problem with the 3D Vision, but THEM. But they assume it's just the technology.
There have also been claims of headaches, while using 3D Vision, it is true, when I first started using it, I got a headache until I stopped using it, but then after a couple days, I stopped getting headaches (Brain might have to get use to it)
But some people don't even give it a chance, they just think "Oh this is c&rap, I got a headache from it, I'm going to stop using it" little do their realize (Due to ignorance, and lack of patience) that in a couple days they would stop having headaches. Too bad ignorance stops people from having a highly immersive experience.
Let me tell you, once you truly understand how your eyes work with your brain, to give you real life depth perception, and THEN you understand how the 3D Glasses work in conjunction with the monitor, and having 2 separate perspectives rendered through the video card, then filtered through each eye, and then your brain combining the two.
You will then realize that it is the best method of simulating real world depth in a game, since it essentially works the way your eyes and brain work.
and it REALLY does work, it's not like it sort of works.
I mean you don't look at objects around you in the real world, and say to yourself "That sort of looks like it has depth, but this doesn't" Unless you have some sort of stereo vision medical issue, it's going to appear the same in game.
So to recap... Eyefinity = Great for Peripheral Vision, but Poor for Depth
3D Vision = Great for Depth, but poor for Peripheral Vision.
It's ignorant to say that Eyefinity gives you more depth simple because it encompases your entire field of view, that's NOT depth, it's more immersive than having one monitor, I agree, but still not nearly as immersive as having ACTUAL proper depth.
So people, it really depends what YOU consider more important.
Eyefinity, will help give you the edge, but 3D Vision, is going to take EVERYTHING that you see in your game, and add an extra dimension to it.
If you would like to have both, I suggest waiting to see if either Nvidia adopts Multi Display Support, or ATI adopts 3D Vision support (Maybe in another form)
It's personal preference really.
But let's at least be reasonable on our claims.
Eyefinity. Already got 2 monitors, just need one more. It works better than 3D Vision. We just need faster GPUs for those ultra high resolutions.
gorobei
Diamond Member
- Jan 7, 2007
- 4,008
- 1,509
- 136
I never said it offered more "depth". try reading my actual words. I said it "offer(ed) way more to me" and that it would "own any stereoscopic goggle nonsense". At no time did I ever state that it offered more "depth". that is your own persectution complex inserting words that don't exist.
And the OP asked which was more important to each person, so relative importance was already implicit. Thus why I mention work use and game use.
And functionally the goggles are nonsense because:
1) not everyone can wear the headset comfortably whether it's due to size of head, prescription glasses, expensive audio headphones that don't fit over, or just plain weight/bulk/silliness. The active goggles need power cords or batteries, an active synchronization bar on the monitor with more wires, and tack on an additional cost of ownership above the 120Hz 1680x1050 TN monitor that only is good for games (vs a good IPS or VA panel at 1920x1200 good for photo-edit/movies/work.)
2) even with passive anaglyph 3d mode being cheaper, now you have to deal with red/blue cast on the entire scene.
3) true 3d immersion would require the virtual cameras used to render the field to be calibrated for the actual distance between the wearers eyes. While you can approximate based on statistical averages of head size, there can be no "real" 3d depth information given that you dont know the distance the viewer is from the screen. Hence all depth information is pseudo-depth to impart some parallax shift into screen objects based on z-depth stencil data. At least that would be the way to do it if you wanted to keep the resource demands reasonable. The majority of 3dvision benchmarks indicate that it may just be a brute force double camera render given the way that it halves the fps at 60Hz(i.e. rendering the same frame twice, once for each eye; therefore halving max game framerate).
Eyefinity offers more because it's actually giving you more usable information in any first person game(shooter,driver,pilot). Knowing how far the enemy/hairpin turn/bogey is in pseudo inches doesn't improve your situational awareness. Being able to see the enemy 60deg to your right with your own peripheral vision is far more useful, given that the guy about to kill you would be unseen on a single monitor's field of view regardless of whether it was 3d vision or standard.
And if NV offers multi monitor with tesla/300, to have 3 monitors at 120Hz in stereo depth means that you are rendering 6 screens worth of pixels each frame. I just don't think that their next gen gpu is a 6x improvement over the gtx285.
If you are going to bother with 3d and goggles, NV might as well go whole hog and do 2 OLED displays in a headset with head tracking and provide true 360 deg vision. the only problem being that once you get rid of desktop monitors from the game equation the need for powerhouse videocards goes down. I don't remember the exact resolution but the tv-in-a-headset makers said that the human eye doesn't need 1920x1080p for stereo vision display glasses, but rather you can get away with something like 800x600 or less. two 800x600 displays could probably be handled by an 8800gt/gt250. But it's unlikely that NV would ever come out with a technology that reduces the need for expensive powerful cards even if it offered true immersion.
And the OP asked which was more important to each person, so relative importance was already implicit. Thus why I mention work use and game use.
And functionally the goggles are nonsense because:
1) not everyone can wear the headset comfortably whether it's due to size of head, prescription glasses, expensive audio headphones that don't fit over, or just plain weight/bulk/silliness. The active goggles need power cords or batteries, an active synchronization bar on the monitor with more wires, and tack on an additional cost of ownership above the 120Hz 1680x1050 TN monitor that only is good for games (vs a good IPS or VA panel at 1920x1200 good for photo-edit/movies/work.)
2) even with passive anaglyph 3d mode being cheaper, now you have to deal with red/blue cast on the entire scene.
3) true 3d immersion would require the virtual cameras used to render the field to be calibrated for the actual distance between the wearers eyes. While you can approximate based on statistical averages of head size, there can be no "real" 3d depth information given that you dont know the distance the viewer is from the screen. Hence all depth information is pseudo-depth to impart some parallax shift into screen objects based on z-depth stencil data. At least that would be the way to do it if you wanted to keep the resource demands reasonable. The majority of 3dvision benchmarks indicate that it may just be a brute force double camera render given the way that it halves the fps at 60Hz(i.e. rendering the same frame twice, once for each eye; therefore halving max game framerate).
Eyefinity offers more because it's actually giving you more usable information in any first person game(shooter,driver,pilot). Knowing how far the enemy/hairpin turn/bogey is in pseudo inches doesn't improve your situational awareness. Being able to see the enemy 60deg to your right with your own peripheral vision is far more useful, given that the guy about to kill you would be unseen on a single monitor's field of view regardless of whether it was 3d vision or standard.
And if NV offers multi monitor with tesla/300, to have 3 monitors at 120Hz in stereo depth means that you are rendering 6 screens worth of pixels each frame. I just don't think that their next gen gpu is a 6x improvement over the gtx285.
If you are going to bother with 3d and goggles, NV might as well go whole hog and do 2 OLED displays in a headset with head tracking and provide true 360 deg vision. the only problem being that once you get rid of desktop monitors from the game equation the need for powerhouse videocards goes down. I don't remember the exact resolution but the tv-in-a-headset makers said that the human eye doesn't need 1920x1080p for stereo vision display glasses, but rather you can get away with something like 800x600 or less. two 800x600 displays could probably be handled by an 8800gt/gt250. But it's unlikely that NV would ever come out with a technology that reduces the need for expensive powerful cards even if it offered true immersion.
Personally, I'm hanging between neither and Eyefinity. I don't like the bezel much, although I guess I could get used to it, but I won't be buying 2 additional monitors any time soon so the bezel has time to diminish by then and/or OLED to become common.
As for 3D, I like the idea, but the glasses DOES give me headaches (actually migraines and nausea) since I'm a bit photosensitive. It's a fact that such 3D technologies trigger epilepsy seizures on some subjects (more than normal screen flickering that all recent video game manual warn about) and cause migraines on some others. For those individuals 3D Vision will always be a no go. Now the question is how much of the population suffers from such "disability" and if it's enough to disrupt the marketing viability of the product. From my personal relations, I'd say that it's pretty high, but then again most people I know are natives from the same place as I am, thus I cannot disregard a geographic genetic defect posibility. So, anyway, the only way to get 3d that don't dizzy me is through real holography (the MIT museum has real nice examples of those btw.)
Regards
As for 3D, I like the idea, but the glasses DOES give me headaches (actually migraines and nausea) since I'm a bit photosensitive. It's a fact that such 3D technologies trigger epilepsy seizures on some subjects (more than normal screen flickering that all recent video game manual warn about) and cause migraines on some others. For those individuals 3D Vision will always be a no go. Now the question is how much of the population suffers from such "disability" and if it's enough to disrupt the marketing viability of the product. From my personal relations, I'd say that it's pretty high, but then again most people I know are natives from the same place as I am, thus I cannot disregard a geographic genetic defect posibility. So, anyway, the only way to get 3d that don't dizzy me is through real holography (the MIT museum has real nice examples of those btw.)
Regards
3D Vision: a stupid gimmick, just like the new 3D marketing push on HDTVs, which is another gimmick. Trash. Waste of money and people who think it's cool need to get a life. It doesn't make things more realistic, it makes you a bigger loser.
Eyefinity: Good to see better support for multiple monitors, but another expensive boondoggle for most users who will never own 3 identical monitors, nor should they rightly spend so much money on monitors. Pointless with two monitors because of the bezels right in the middle. Three is really too wide and having to move your head to see from one side to the other is an annoyance not a benefit.
You're better off having one good 20-24" primary display for your PC and an HDTV of 32-40" for your second display to watch movies and play games on.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I really dislike these new trends into extravagant nonsense. I'd rather see those resources and energy spent improving DX11 drivers and GPU hardware so it can be more reliable, efficient-yet-powerful, and affordable.
Eyefinity: Good to see better support for multiple monitors, but another expensive boondoggle for most users who will never own 3 identical monitors, nor should they rightly spend so much money on monitors. Pointless with two monitors because of the bezels right in the middle. Three is really too wide and having to move your head to see from one side to the other is an annoyance not a benefit.
You're better off having one good 20-24" primary display for your PC and an HDTV of 32-40" for your second display to watch movies and play games on.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I really dislike these new trends into extravagant nonsense. I'd rather see those resources and energy spent improving DX11 drivers and GPU hardware so it can be more reliable, efficient-yet-powerful, and affordable.
WildW
Senior member
I wish we had a super-wide field of view HD headset display. It's been 15 to 20 years since Lawnmower Man, I want my virtual reality goggles. It would be 3D _and_ vision surrounding. Awesome for games, spacesaving over having a monitor, and just imagine the adult entertainment applications
Unfortunately I imagine Eyefinity and 3D Vision are going to remain niche and underused. Eyefinity is likely to need games to be optimised for it to make good use, and people need (currently) expensive monitors to go for the 3D option. Both will end up like the Sega CD and 32X. If anything the 3D option has more chance of success, just about. I'm not fussed by either in the current form.
Unfortunately I imagine Eyefinity and 3D Vision are going to remain niche and underused. Eyefinity is likely to need games to be optimised for it to make good use, and people need (currently) expensive monitors to go for the 3D option. Both will end up like the Sega CD and 32X. If anything the 3D option has more chance of success, just about. I'm not fussed by either in the current form.
/raise hand.
Why multiple instead of a big one? 46" HDTV is now under 1,000 bucks, what is perfect for gaming. I may consider multi-display when LCD are edgeless, or when I for whatever reason buy 2 more 46" HDTV.
As to 3D vision, it is an experience you can't describe. It turns games that you thought you know into another level. There are problems though, the technology is not really up there. 120" LCD isn't the norm, and current ones have ghosts(not a lot, but sometimes there are). Not all games support 3D, and even the best ones have bugs.
For ATI people, go IZ3D for 3D.
For Nvidia people, go Softth(free) or triplehead2go.
However, you can either go 3d, or multi-display, but not both at the same time.
Why multiple instead of a big one? 46" HDTV is now under 1,000 bucks, what is perfect for gaming. I may consider multi-display when LCD are edgeless, or when I for whatever reason buy 2 more 46" HDTV.
As to 3D vision, it is an experience you can't describe. It turns games that you thought you know into another level. There are problems though, the technology is not really up there. 120" LCD isn't the norm, and current ones have ghosts(not a lot, but sometimes there are). Not all games support 3D, and even the best ones have bugs.
For ATI people, go IZ3D for 3D.
For Nvidia people, go Softth(free) or triplehead2go.
However, you can either go 3d, or multi-display, but not both at the same time.
Last edited:
Well imho I'll consider this stuff when we have monitors with small bezels (that can't be that hard, or is there a real problem?) and 24" IPS monitors with 120hz (IPS panels - and not too much of a premium - yep that will take it's time).
Atm I wouldn't spend money on either of them - especially I would never consider going back to 22" - I need the space..
@Seero: What's the resolution of this 46" TVs? I thought it was rather low..
Atm I wouldn't spend money on either of them - especially I would never consider going back to 22" - I need the space..
@Seero: What's the resolution of this 46" TVs? I thought it was rather low..
If by "perfect for gaming" you mean low resolution,laggy, ghosting, and blurry then yes I agree.
TVs arent monitors and there is a reason TVs are so much cheaper than a similiar sized monitor. A 2560x1600 30' monitor absolutley blows away a 46' 1920×1080 TV when it comes to image quality.
The 46 is merely blowing up a lousy image. I can give you a cheap digital projector than can do the same thing. You can project it onto your wall and have an awesome 90 inch "gaming monitor".
Last edited:
22, samsung LCD, 1920x1080, 120 hz.
30" Samsung LCD, 2560x1600
52" Toshiba HDTV, 1920x1080, 120 Hz
In theory, you are right. In practice, the 30" high res LCD is actually the worst to play games on. Low contrast = less shape. Lower refresh rate = blurry. High res = lower FPS/higher lag. Did I mention about the price?
IMO the multi-display idea is good, but the technology is not yet there for gamin. We must wait for edgeless/seamless LCD before this tech can reach its full potential.
at80eighty
Senior member
- Jun 28, 2004
- 458
- 5
- 81
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter