Tomshardware: AMD Shows 3D Capabilities With HD3D

[Dribble]

I just want something that works. Right now the nvidia 3d vision solution works best - all tests I have ever read show DDD and IZ3d are significantly less reliable then 3d vision.

This is not surprising as 3d vision can be coded into the nvidia drivers unlike DDD and IZ3d who have to code around the drivers and live with any problems they cause. Nvidia also has much closer links to the gaming companies - it's TWIMTBP collaborations that are giving us fully 3D compliant games. If anything DDD, IZ3d and AMD need nvidia as they can't afford or choose not to work with devs themselves - without nvidia chances are there wouldn't be any games that work perfectly in 3d.

The 24fps over HDMI is also a show stopper, not just because it makes 3d jerky but because it also means you can't run the monitor at 120fps outside of 3d, which is currently the single best thing about owning a "3d ready" setup.

 

[MutantGith]

Lonyo, and - by extension, everyone else.

You'd mentioned being interested in comparing the driver solutions. MTBS3D has a series of reviews that do just that.

http://www.mtbs3d.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=38&Itemid=76

They also have a relatively good comparison video that goes into some of the pros/cons state of development in the various vendor/display solutions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAevDGaBb9w

It should be noted the above may be a touch out of date, I haven't watched since it was posted, and can't recall how long ago it was.

I've been around the block a few times with multiple stereo-solutions, from multiple sources. I can attest to the fact that, generally, when there are more links in the chain from game to end user experience, there are more places where something can go wrong and result in a bout of cursing and troubleshooting. Generally, there are places where the best troubleshooting in the world can't solve a limitation imposed by the system you're working with.

I'm building a new rig by pieces at the moment, and seeing how the competition in this space sorts itself out is very interesting to me. Since I'm planning on using three 24" PVA panels for surround, I'm curious what my options for an alternate stereo option. In my case, the performance in these traditionally fringe spaces (High resolution surround, active stereo 3D) will likely be the deciding factor in my graphics card purchase.

 

[3DVagabond]

Are you ok with AMD not creating their own gaming 3d driver and allowing 3rd party companies, DDD and IZ3d to charge you for one. I wonder if AMD even regularly checks for compatibility with their driver releases ?

Am I OK with 3rd parties competing and charging me 1/2 as much? Of course I am. My question was are you OK with nVidia making it proprietary and charging people twice as much because they have no other alternative.
AMD just has to make sure their hardware is compatible to the industry standard. The people you buy the drivers from support them.

I think Nvidia's approach is vastly superior. You can go to their site and read FAQ's, directons on every step of the process. Troubleshooting databases etc.
You go AMD and you can read a press release and hope you have no trouble and need support.

Well, there's the confusion. You don't go to AMD. You go to the people you bought the drivers from. There's no reason to assume their support will be any different than nVidia or AMD.

The driver that Nvidia charges for that allows 3dtvplay is included when you buy a 3dvision glasses kit.

You can pay ~$140 for the kit with the drivers, glasses, etc. Or you can buy the drivers by themselves for ~$40. Yes, I know this. If you go AMD route you use the glasses that came with your 3D display and pay ~$20 for the drivers.

nVidia's process does seem to be more mature at this point. I'll grant that.

This support is being paid for by everyone who buys an nVidia card, whether they use 3D or not. Which at this point in time, isn't very many. If it does catch on then nVidia is looking at collecting again from people who want to join in 3D gaming. Either ~$140 or ~$40 depending on the type of display they use.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

So, your complaint is the savings of 15-20 dollars, which is being helped, probably with AMD subsidies.

How about this: nVidia may be investing more in 3d stereo because they feel there is going to be impressive growth with 3d in the coming years. They're trying to build a foundation to get the ball rolling for Stereo3d content in displays, cameras, games, video, photos, Internet experiences, PC's and glasses. So, when one thinks of 3d, a consumer may think of nVidia, too!

One doesn't have to agree with all their methods but they seem to be very pro-active and only helps 3d stereo awareness over-all and forces others to compete.

 

[MajorMullet]

I thought I might share my experiences here since I've experienced 3D on both sides of the fence.

Early last year, I bought a Samsung 2233RZ 120hz monitor with 3D glasses for a good price on Craigslist. I had a GTX 260 at the time, but I wasn't very happy with the setup, particularly because the 260 didn't feel like it could keep up. So I sold the 260 and the glasses, got a 5850 and kept the 120hz monitor for the more fluid 2D experience.

Late last year I got an Optoma HD66 projector. It's true 120hz, nvidia 3D certified. You can also do 3D on it with an AMD card, so I thought I would experiment with 3D on the projector after I bought it. I bought some DLP Link glasses and Roxio Cineplayer BD for playing back movies (~$36). I only tried one movie - Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, but it worked great - I had no little trouble getting it to work.

I downloaded the IZ3D driver trial and while I finally got it set up it was a bit of a pain. Certain games didn't seem to like the driver - Bad Company 2 always crashed on startup when I had the driver enabled, so I never even got to test it. I also never could get Fallout: New Vegas to converge properly. DC Online and Arkham Asylum both worked great though, very good 3D effect in both of those.

The bad thing about the AMD setup for my use is that I'm limited to my projector. While it's awesome to game on a projector, you have limited resolution (1280x720) and you have to play on the couch. So it was fine for DC Online, Arkham Asylum, etc, but most PC games don't play nice with controllers, and considering they're PC games I'd much rather use a mouse/keyboard.

This past weekend, I bought a GTX570 and another pair of nvidia 3D glasses. I wanted to try the nvidia solution again with the faster card and see if the drivers had improved. Setup was much easier than the IZ3D driver. I downloaded the latest drivers, plugged in the emitter and put on the glasses, then went through the 5 or so step wizard and was good to go.

I fired up Bad Company 2, it worked perfectly and it looks amazing. That's all I've had time to test so far, but the 570 had no trouble keeping up. I'm definitely more happy with the nvidia setup than I was a year ago, and I'm looking forward to testing more games.

I'd say it's difficult to compete with nvidia right now with regards to ease of use and compatibility. AMD's more open approach might pay off for them in the long run though, especially if 3rd party vendors like IZ3D can provide a better user experience and compatibility.

 

[3DVagabond]

Imho,

So, your complaint is the savings of 15-20 dollars, which is being helped, probably with AMD subsidies.

How about this: nVidia may be investing more in 3d stereo because they feel there is going to be impressive growth with 3d in the coming years. They're trying to build a foundation to get the ball rolling for Stereo3d content in displays, cameras, games, video, photos, Internet experiences, PC's and glasses. So, when one thinks of 3d, a consumer may think of nVidia, too!

One doesn't have to agree with all their methods but they seem to be very pro-active and only helps 3d stereo awareness over-all and forces others to compete.

I think anyone who knows who/what nVidia is already knows about 3D. I know JHH's ego won't admit it, but nVidia isn't Sony or Panasonic, in the eyes of the mainstream consumer.

Don't try to dismiss this as $15-$20 dollars. It's up to 100% more than the competitive open market would allow for them to charge. Where does it say AMD is subsidizing these companies? While that's possible, as in "anything's possible", that's an awful lot to assume and then make it a reason for nVidia charging twice as much.

 

[SirPauly]

Imho,

Let's say I like DDD software but I am a nVidia GPU owner, I have to pay 49.99 MSRP

Let's say I like Iz3d software but I am a nVidia GPU owner, I have to pay 39.99 MSRP

In my mind, it is the competitive landscape -- open/proprietary that brings value -- for example: cheaper 3d stereo software from DDD and IZ3d for AMD owners and nVidia lowering prices for their 3d Vision Kit or just the glasses.

All this is creating awareness, and if standards are forged or current standards mature, there will be no need of proprietary at all.

 

[wahdangun]

For games.
With the AMD route, if you have a 3d tv and its 'proprietary' glasses then you can go the iz3d route.
But if you want to strictly use a 120mhz PC monitor, then you have to buy your monitor and hope it works well with whatever 3d glasses solution you also buy separately. So now you have 3 pieces of the puzzle from different vendors, not counting the game software !

Some try to spin that having a complete solution from a vendor as a negative. I only see positives. Unless its not available to you.

but if i'm not mistaken DDD and iz3d have thair own glasses too,

 

[SirPauly]

IZ3d is trying to bring to market their own brand of shutters:

http://forum.iz3d.com/viewtopic.php...&start=0&sid=b608d21d56a046f529096adaf1b9fe69

Really interesting thread!

 

[MutantGith]

IZ3D directly said they had worked out a deal a while back to offer the DLP link mode of their drivers to owners of Radeon cards at no cost. If you had an NVIDIA card, you had to pay for that mode. Developers/coders were also speaking very directly on their forums about direct co-operation with ATI driver teams, so I think the precedent that they have direct, likely subsidized co-operation isn't too far of a stretch. There being a difference in price for the same driver code, depending on which graphics card you own may also be noteworthy.

The approaches of the two card manufacturers in this case are not all that different at the end of the day. NVIDIA appears to have taken some of their older stereo code base from QUADRO cards, incorporated it into their drivers and hardware development, and then designed/subbed out glasses and emitter hardware that would work very well with their system. ATI instead, relied on the driver development of two third party companies that had previously been in a different business model to generate active stereo wrappers. Instead of acquiring or officially partnering with these companies, they seem to have left the development of code to them, with some driver support, much like they might offer a game developer. They did incorporate their 3DHD, but that primarily only offers 3D blu-ray support, using this for games requires the drivers to effectively emulate that output in software for the card to pack and send over HDMI.

Neither approach is "right", but are different. While the multi-party, 'open' approach from ATI does offer more choice, it also requires it. You have to fiddle with more parts, more configurations, and do more pro-active figuring. There are big holes, such as if you want to use a desktop monitor that isn't one model from Viewsonic, have a projector that doesn't come with 1.4a compatibility/its own glasses, want to run DX11 or a 64bit application, etc... The NVIDIA approach, while more 'closed' also is designed to work more flawlessly within it's own eco-system. Pretty much, if you have a display device capable of real 120Hz input, you're good to go with one glasses/emitter kit. Either Dual link DVI, hdmi 1.4a, whatever.

While you can talk about the difference in price between an ATI owner getting a cheaper price versus an NVIDIA owner having to pay 40$ for their software as '100%', it still isn't that much money. If you're looking at active shutter glasses that use a modern, wireless protocol (ie, TV with HDMI 1.4a, NVIDIA, etc...) you likely paid at least 100$ for the glasses.

My 16 pfennigs

Update: I'd heard the rumor about working, vendor agnostic 120Hz drivers before. I'll be curious to see how that goes. Current implementation of those modes in drivers tend to have significant issues, along with generic and WLC/BLC shutter modes. I'd be thrilled if it works.

 

[mosox]

The technologies are completely different, one is more natural (circular polarization - found in some beetles, fish that glow in the dark) and uses cheap glasses (you can even make your own) and 60Hz displays, the other uses the alternate-frame sequencing and needs expensive active glasses with shutters and a wireless signal between the screen and the glasses for each viewer that's watching. 5 persons in the family? 5 pairs of active glasses. Also 120Hz displays.

Since HDMI 1.4a and the DisplayPort 1.2 are the new standards, all the monitors/TVs will have that.

One should test both before making up his mind but the first solution puts less strain on the eyes. One can find that a few minutes into a movie.