Performance hit with 3D vision vs. 3D vision discover
1 / 2
Hey guys,
I have a 3 year old 52 inch Sharp 1080p LCD TV that I want to keep around for at least another 3 years before replacing it with a 3D HDTV. So I've been using 3D vision discover with red/cyan glasses to old me over.
I got a GTX 280 and some games running at full detail in 1080p mode with all the bells and whistles on do take a big performance hit when anaglyph glasses, though they are still playable. Fallout 3 is a good example of this. Others run perfect in full detail + 1080p + anaglyph such as Mirror's Edge.
I am curious, with non anaglyph 3D such as "3D vision" as opposed to "3D vision discover" is the performance hit just as serious? Or will the performance hit be smaller? From what I understand many non anaglyph solutions half the screen resolution due to it being distributed to two eyes, and I am wondering if this reduces the hit on performance.
I have a 3 year old 52 inch Sharp 1080p LCD TV that I want to keep around for at least another 3 years before replacing it with a 3D HDTV. So I've been using 3D vision discover with red/cyan glasses to old me over.
I got a GTX 280 and some games running at full detail in 1080p mode with all the bells and whistles on do take a big performance hit when anaglyph glasses, though they are still playable. Fallout 3 is a good example of this. Others run perfect in full detail + 1080p + anaglyph such as Mirror's Edge.
I am curious, with non anaglyph 3D such as "3D vision" as opposed to "3D vision discover" is the performance hit just as serious? Or will the performance hit be smaller? From what I understand many non anaglyph solutions half the screen resolution due to it being distributed to two eyes, and I am wondering if this reduces the hit on performance.
The 3D Vision Discover and 3D Vision both do provide full resolution in 3D mode. And theoretically they should have the same drop in performance with the stereo 3D mode activated, as the difference is only in the way the 3D image is being displayed on the screen, the calculations done for them both should be the same to build the separate frame for left and right eye. Haven't tried to compare the performance between both modes, but there should just be a very minor difference if any...
The 3D Vision Discover and 3D Vision both do provide full resolution in 3D mode. And theoretically they should have the same drop in performance with the stereo 3D mode activated, as the difference is only in the way the 3D image is being displayed on the screen, the calculations done for them both should be the same to build the separate frame for left and right eye. Haven't tried to compare the performance between both modes, but there should just be a very minor difference if any...
IceAIM, I was also thinking about this issue and wanted to create this thread :-)
There is not marginal difference, there is brutal difference between 3d vision and discover. I guess it has something to do with syncing images, because in discover it is not necesarry to do that. I am not sure whether nvidia can tweak it somehow in driver or rather developers have to tweak "gaming loop" for that.
It would be nice if somebody from Nvidia could educate us.
IceAIM, I was also thinking about this issue and wanted to create this thread :-)
There is not marginal difference, there is brutal difference between 3d vision and discover. I guess it has something to do with syncing images, because in discover it is not necesarry to do that. I am not sure whether nvidia can tweak it somehow in driver or rather developers have to tweak "gaming loop" for that.
It would be nice if somebody from Nvidia could educate us.
[quote name='IceAIM' post='1042354' date='Apr 20 2010, 01:19 PM']I am curious, with non anaglyph 3D such as "3D vision" as opposed to "3D vision discover" is the performance hit just as serious? Or will the performance hit be smaller? From what I understand many non anaglyph solutions half the screen resolution due to it being distributed to two eyes, and I am wondering if this reduces the hit on performance.[/quote]
If it helps I can tell you the performance drop with 3D Vision is about 40-45%. So your framerate is a little more than half what it'd be without 3D. I've never used Discover though. I did use anaglyph with iZ3D though and again the performance drop was around the same, nearly half.
[quote name='IceAIM' post='1042354' date='Apr 20 2010, 01:19 PM']I am curious, with non anaglyph 3D such as "3D vision" as opposed to "3D vision discover" is the performance hit just as serious? Or will the performance hit be smaller? From what I understand many non anaglyph solutions half the screen resolution due to it being distributed to two eyes, and I am wondering if this reduces the hit on performance.
If it helps I can tell you the performance drop with 3D Vision is about 40-45%. So your framerate is a little more than half what it'd be without 3D. I've never used Discover though. I did use anaglyph with iZ3D though and again the performance drop was around the same, nearly half.
[quote name='fish99' post='1042392' date='Apr 20 2010, 03:15 PM']So your framerate is a little more than half what it'd be without 3D.[/quote]
This is incorrect hypothesis in general. Usually performance drop is 60 and more percent. You have probably weak CPU/system which is bottlenecking so in your case it may be this number.
[quote name='fish99' post='1042392' date='Apr 20 2010, 03:15 PM']So your framerate is a little more than half what it'd be without 3D.
This is incorrect hypothesis in general. Usually performance drop is 60 and more percent. You have probably weak CPU/system which is bottlenecking so in your case it may be this number.
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042414' date='Apr 20 2010, 02:56 PM']This is incorrect hypothesis in general. Usually performance drop is 60 and more percent. You have probably weak CPU/system which is bottlenecking so in your case it may be this number.[/quote]
I've read 40-45% from countless different people here. Also I don't think any of the games I play in 3D tax my E8500 (i.e. I don't get 100% cpu usage with any of them).
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042414' date='Apr 20 2010, 02:56 PM']This is incorrect hypothesis in general. Usually performance drop is 60 and more percent. You have probably weak CPU/system which is bottlenecking so in your case it may be this number.
I've read 40-45% from countless different people here. Also I don't think any of the games I play in 3D tax my E8500 (i.e. I don't get 100% cpu usage with any of them).
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042425' date='Apr 20 2010, 03:11 PM']Which games? What fps with/without 3D Vision?[/quote]
Didn't have any numbers written down so had to run some quick tests-
game /with 3D / without 3D
----------------------------------
GTA4 inside 60 / 108
GTA4 outside 30 / 42
The Hunter 53 / 105
Torchlight 60 / 120 (hitting v-sync limit in both cases I guess)
Left For Dead 44 / 80
Batman AA 30 / 45
Remember I'm using a CRT so only a 1280*960 res, which doesn't stress my GTX260 so bad.
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042439' date='Apr 20 2010, 04:14 PM']Ok, but with increasing resolution computational problem increases quadratically not linearly.[/quote]
That's not entirely true, but nevetheless the drop from using 3D on my PC is closer to 40% than 60%. Maybe you can test the same games on your PC.
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042439' date='Apr 20 2010, 04:14 PM']Ok, but with increasing resolution computational problem increases quadratically not linearly.
That's not entirely true, but nevetheless the drop from using 3D on my PC is closer to 40% than 60%. Maybe you can test the same games on your PC.
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042439' date='Apr 20 2010, 04:14 PM']Ok, but with increasing resolution computational problem increases quadratically not linearly.[/quote]
Actually, thinking about that statement a little more I'm not sure it's even relevant, since the amount of extra pixels to render to produce 3D is always exactly 100% in any given scenario. So if the exact same scene were rendered exactly the same way twice, the drop would always be 50%. However much of the work doesn't have to be repeated for the 2nd frame, some of the translation data (local to world) can be reused, as can the physics calculations, probably quite a bit of other stuff too like environment maps.
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042439' date='Apr 20 2010, 04:14 PM']Ok, but with increasing resolution computational problem increases quadratically not linearly.
Actually, thinking about that statement a little more I'm not sure it's even relevant, since the amount of extra pixels to render to produce 3D is always exactly 100% in any given scenario. So if the exact same scene were rendered exactly the same way twice, the drop would always be 50%. However much of the work doesn't have to be repeated for the 2nd frame, some of the translation data (local to world) can be reused, as can the physics calculations, probably quite a bit of other stuff too like environment maps.
I meant mainly something else - screen resolutions. Because you have small resolution it may behave [i]quadratically[/i] differently than in nowadays resolutions.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.
I meant mainly something else - screen resolutions. Because you have small resolution it may behave quadratically differently than in nowadays resolutions.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042462' date='Apr 20 2010, 04:54 PM']I meant mainly something else - screen resolutions. Because you have small resolution it may behave [i]quadratically[/i] differently than in nowadays resolutions.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.[/quote]
I understood what you meant, but we're not comparing one resolution with another, we're talking about the framerate drop at a set resolution (i.e. 3D on vs 3D off at a particular resolution). Whether you run 640*480, 1280*960 or 1920*1200, the amount of extra work to render 3D is always the same, exactly double. Think about it, all you're effectively doing with 3D is rendering the same frame again (with a small camera position/rotation offset), so the framerate should never drop by more than half.
Only occaison I can think of where it could drop by more than half would be if you were comparing 3D / V-sync ON vs. 2D / V-sync OFF, but that's not a fair comparison (v-sync is always on with 3D).
[quote name='TrekCZ' post='1042462' date='Apr 20 2010, 04:54 PM']I meant mainly something else - screen resolutions. Because you have small resolution it may behave quadratically differently than in nowadays resolutions.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.
I understood what you meant, but we're not comparing one resolution with another, we're talking about the framerate drop at a set resolution (i.e. 3D on vs 3D off at a particular resolution). Whether you run 640*480, 1280*960 or 1920*1200, the amount of extra work to render 3D is always the same, exactly double. Think about it, all you're effectively doing with 3D is rendering the same frame again (with a small camera position/rotation offset), so the framerate should never drop by more than half.
Only occaison I can think of where it could drop by more than half would be if you were comparing 3D / V-sync ON vs. 2D / V-sync OFF, but that's not a fair comparison (v-sync is always on with 3D).
[quote name='fish99' post='1042470' date='Apr 20 2010, 06:16 PM']Think about it, all you're effectively doing with 3D is rendering the same frame again (with a small camera position/rotation offset), so the framerate should never drop by more than half.[/quote]
Yes I understand, but I do not believe that it is correct statement :-)
It can happen also that graphics resources are "depleted" from some resolution. There is not [b]big[/b] difference between fps in 3d vision in full hd and 3d vision in your resolution however performance difference is major in non stereoscopic modes.
[quote name='fish99' post='1042470' date='Apr 20 2010, 06:16 PM']Think about it, all you're effectively doing with 3D is rendering the same frame again (with a small camera position/rotation offset), so the framerate should never drop by more than half.
Yes I understand, but I do not believe that it is correct statement :-)
It can happen also that graphics resources are "depleted" from some resolution. There is not big difference between fps in 3d vision in full hd and 3d vision in your resolution however performance difference is major in non stereoscopic modes.
I have a 3 year old 52 inch Sharp 1080p LCD TV that I want to keep around for at least another 3 years before replacing it with a 3D HDTV. So I've been using 3D vision discover with red/cyan glasses to old me over.
I got a GTX 280 and some games running at full detail in 1080p mode with all the bells and whistles on do take a big performance hit when anaglyph glasses, though they are still playable. Fallout 3 is a good example of this. Others run perfect in full detail + 1080p + anaglyph such as Mirror's Edge.
I am curious, with non anaglyph 3D such as "3D vision" as opposed to "3D vision discover" is the performance hit just as serious? Or will the performance hit be smaller? From what I understand many non anaglyph solutions half the screen resolution due to it being distributed to two eyes, and I am wondering if this reduces the hit on performance.
I have a 3 year old 52 inch Sharp 1080p LCD TV that I want to keep around for at least another 3 years before replacing it with a 3D HDTV. So I've been using 3D vision discover with red/cyan glasses to old me over.
I got a GTX 280 and some games running at full detail in 1080p mode with all the bells and whistles on do take a big performance hit when anaglyph glasses, though they are still playable. Fallout 3 is a good example of this. Others run perfect in full detail + 1080p + anaglyph such as Mirror's Edge.
I am curious, with non anaglyph 3D such as "3D vision" as opposed to "3D vision discover" is the performance hit just as serious? Or will the performance hit be smaller? From what I understand many non anaglyph solutions half the screen resolution due to it being distributed to two eyes, and I am wondering if this reduces the hit on performance.
My 3D Vision Blog - 3dvision-blog.com
There is not marginal difference, there is brutal difference between 3d vision and discover. I guess it has something to do with syncing images, because in discover it is not necesarry to do that. I am not sure whether nvidia can tweak it somehow in driver or rather developers have to tweak "gaming loop" for that.
It would be nice if somebody from Nvidia could educate us.
There is not marginal difference, there is brutal difference between 3d vision and discover. I guess it has something to do with syncing images, because in discover it is not necesarry to do that. I am not sure whether nvidia can tweak it somehow in driver or rather developers have to tweak "gaming loop" for that.
It would be nice if somebody from Nvidia could educate us.
If it helps I can tell you the performance drop with 3D Vision is about 40-45%. So your framerate is a little more than half what it'd be without 3D. I've never used Discover though. I did use anaglyph with iZ3D though and again the performance drop was around the same, nearly half.
If it helps I can tell you the performance drop with 3D Vision is about 40-45%. So your framerate is a little more than half what it'd be without 3D. I've never used Discover though. I did use anaglyph with iZ3D though and again the performance drop was around the same, nearly half.
This is incorrect hypothesis in general. Usually performance drop is 60 and more percent. You have probably weak CPU/system which is bottlenecking so in your case it may be this number.
This is incorrect hypothesis in general. Usually performance drop is 60 and more percent. You have probably weak CPU/system which is bottlenecking so in your case it may be this number.
I've read 40-45% from countless different people here. Also I don't think any of the games I play in 3D tax my E8500 (i.e. I don't get 100% cpu usage with any of them).
I've read 40-45% from countless different people here. Also I don't think any of the games I play in 3D tax my E8500 (i.e. I don't get 100% cpu usage with any of them).
Didn't have any numbers written down so had to run some quick tests-
game /with 3D / without 3D
----------------------------------
GTA4 inside 60 / 108
GTA4 outside 30 / 42
The Hunter 53 / 105
Torchlight 60 / 120 (hitting v-sync limit in both cases I guess)
Left For Dead 44 / 80
Batman AA 30 / 45
Remember I'm using a CRT so only a 1280*960 res, which doesn't stress my GTX260 so bad.
Didn't have any numbers written down so had to run some quick tests-
game /with 3D / without 3D
----------------------------------
GTA4 inside 60 / 108
GTA4 outside 30 / 42
The Hunter 53 / 105
Torchlight 60 / 120 (hitting v-sync limit in both cases I guess)
Left For Dead 44 / 80
Batman AA 30 / 45
Remember I'm using a CRT so only a 1280*960 res, which doesn't stress my GTX260 so bad.
That's not entirely true, but nevetheless the drop from using 3D on my PC is closer to 40% than 60%. Maybe you can test the same games on your PC.
That's not entirely true, but nevetheless the drop from using 3D on my PC is closer to 40% than 60%. Maybe you can test the same games on your PC.
Actually, thinking about that statement a little more I'm not sure it's even relevant, since the amount of extra pixels to render to produce 3D is always exactly 100% in any given scenario. So if the exact same scene were rendered exactly the same way twice, the drop would always be 50%. However much of the work doesn't have to be repeated for the 2nd frame, some of the translation data (local to world) can be reused, as can the physics calculations, probably quite a bit of other stuff too like environment maps.
Actually, thinking about that statement a little more I'm not sure it's even relevant, since the amount of extra pixels to render to produce 3D is always exactly 100% in any given scenario. So if the exact same scene were rendered exactly the same way twice, the drop would always be 50%. However much of the work doesn't have to be repeated for the 2nd frame, some of the translation data (local to world) can be reused, as can the physics calculations, probably quite a bit of other stuff too like environment maps.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.[/quote]
I understood what you meant, but we're not comparing one resolution with another, we're talking about the framerate drop at a set resolution (i.e. 3D on vs 3D off at a particular resolution). Whether you run 640*480, 1280*960 or 1920*1200, the amount of extra work to render 3D is always the same, exactly double. Think about it, all you're effectively doing with 3D is rendering the same frame again (with a small camera position/rotation offset), so the framerate should never drop by more than half.
Only occaison I can think of where it could drop by more than half would be if you were comparing 3D / V-sync ON vs. 2D / V-sync OFF, but that's not a fair comparison (v-sync is always on with 3D).
Just think about it, you have in 3d vision something like full hd, but if you add 2 fullhd resolutions? That is brutal difference.
I understood what you meant, but we're not comparing one resolution with another, we're talking about the framerate drop at a set resolution (i.e. 3D on vs 3D off at a particular resolution). Whether you run 640*480, 1280*960 or 1920*1200, the amount of extra work to render 3D is always the same, exactly double. Think about it, all you're effectively doing with 3D is rendering the same frame again (with a small camera position/rotation offset), so the framerate should never drop by more than half.
Only occaison I can think of where it could drop by more than half would be if you were comparing 3D / V-sync ON vs. 2D / V-sync OFF, but that's not a fair comparison (v-sync is always on with 3D).
Yes I understand, but I do not believe that it is correct statement :-)
It can happen also that graphics resources are "depleted" from some resolution. There is not [b]big[/b] difference between fps in 3d vision in full hd and 3d vision in your resolution however performance difference is major in non stereoscopic modes.
Yes I understand, but I do not believe that it is correct statement :-)
It can happen also that graphics resources are "depleted" from some resolution. There is not big difference between fps in 3d vision in full hd and 3d vision in your resolution however performance difference is major in non stereoscopic modes.