How is your performance w METRO2033 & 3DVision?
  1 / 2    
Metro 2033 is an OUTSTANDING experience using 3DVision!



Metro is perhaps an extreme example of a title with very high gpu requirements (and very high image quality, unbelieveable!) but there are others (BattlefieldBC2, JustCause2).

My current rig using GTX480s SLI overclocked for example results in only 45-55fps (for each eye) in metro 2033 using only dx9, high settings no aa, plays very smooth at these settings. However using dx9 very high subtract 20fps and quite choppy, though the models look incredible . DX10 or dx11 very high give average 30 fps per eye if advanced depth of field off, with some scenes below 20fps per eye, unplayable.
Turning on advanced Physx decreases framerate by only about 5-6fps but this is enough to hurt playability.

I am running on somewhat older platform QX9650 but very overclocked and METRO2033 is not very CPU dependent according to some benchmarks by others, therefore I don't think I'm seeing cpu bottleneck.

Most other games run very well in 3DVision with just one GTX400 card. Bioshock2 runs very good using one card, the current SLI profile for GTX400 is not working for this game and apparently for some others (jUST CAUSE2 ran much better using my 2xGTX285s , a GTS250 for Physx and older drives for example).

I am pulling about 720watts from wall during intense gameplay, temps max at 94C for lower card with fans on auto which are only slightly louder than GTX285s + dedicated physx.
Overall I'm very happy with the GTX480s and expect performance will improve with 256 drivers.



[size=1][color="#FFCC00"]MOTHERBOARD: EVGA 780I SLI A2 P-06Bios
CPU: Intel 2 Core Quad QX9650 45nm(OC @ 3.83GHz FSB:1333 @ 1.3200V set in bios)prime95 all day
CPU Cooler: Gigabyte 3D Mercury case with integrated watercooling (cpu only at present)
RAM: 2x2GB OCZ PC8000 SLI (Timing:5-5-5-15-2T@ 2.0V, FSB:DRAM Ratio=2:3)
GRAPHICS: 2X EVGA GTX 480sc(clocks: 769c/1007mem/1538shader, stock heatsink)
HDD1: 2X Western Digital Caviar SATA II 250GB 7200 rpm Raid 0
HDD2: Western Digital Caviar SATA II 500GB 7200 rpm
SOUND: On board
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit SP2
MONITOR: Dell 3008wfp 30" Native Res: 2560X1600 @ 60Hz, Acer235Hz120Hz-3D
PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W
CASE: Gigabyte 3D Mercury
3DMARK Vantage: 29,686p Current Display Driver:197.41[/color][/size]
Metro 2033 is an OUTSTANDING experience using 3DVision!







Metro is perhaps an extreme example of a title with very high gpu requirements (and very high image quality, unbelieveable!) but there are others (BattlefieldBC2, JustCause2).



My current rig using GTX480s SLI overclocked for example results in only 45-55fps (for each eye) in metro 2033 using only dx9, high settings no aa, plays very smooth at these settings. However using dx9 very high subtract 20fps and quite choppy, though the models look incredible . DX10 or dx11 very high give average 30 fps per eye if advanced depth of field off, with some scenes below 20fps per eye, unplayable.

Turning on advanced Physx decreases framerate by only about 5-6fps but this is enough to hurt playability.



I am running on somewhat older platform QX9650 but very overclocked and METRO2033 is not very CPU dependent according to some benchmarks by others, therefore I don't think I'm seeing cpu bottleneck.



Most other games run very well in 3DVision with just one GTX400 card. Bioshock2 runs very good using one card, the current SLI profile for GTX400 is not working for this game and apparently for some others (jUST CAUSE2 ran much better using my 2xGTX285s , a GTS250 for Physx and older drives for example).



I am pulling about 720watts from wall during intense gameplay, temps max at 94C for lower card with fans on auto which are only slightly louder than GTX285s + dedicated physx.

Overall I'm very happy with the GTX480s and expect performance will improve with 256 drivers.







MOTHERBOARD: EVGA 780I SLI A2 P-06Bios

CPU: Intel 2 Core Quad QX9650 45nm(OC @ 3.83GHz FSB:1333 @ 1.3200V set in bios)prime95 all day

CPU Cooler: Gigabyte 3D Mercury case with integrated watercooling (cpu only at present)

RAM: 2x2GB OCZ PC8000 SLI (Timing:5-5-5-15-2T@ 2.0V, FSB:DRAM Ratio=2:3)

GRAPHICS: 2X EVGA GTX 480sc(clocks: 769c/1007mem/1538shader, stock heatsink)

HDD1: 2X Western Digital Caviar SATA II 250GB 7200 rpm Raid 0

HDD2: Western Digital Caviar SATA II 500GB 7200 rpm

SOUND: On board

OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit SP2

MONITOR: Dell 3008wfp 30" Native Res: 2560X1600 @ 60Hz, Acer235Hz120Hz-3D

PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W

CASE: Gigabyte 3D Mercury

3DMARK Vantage: 29,686p Current Display Driver:197.41

#1
Posted 05/15/2010 04:18 PM   
u running 2560x1600?
u running 2560x1600?

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#2
Posted 05/15/2010 04:22 PM   
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1056197' date='May 15 2010, 12:22 PM']u running 2560x1600?[/quote]



I am running 1920x1080 using 3DVision and fps reported are per eye.
The immersive nature of the 3D is so excellent I haven't even tried 2560x1600 on the 30" monitor.
[quote name='DanielJoy' post='1056197' date='May 15 2010, 12:22 PM']u running 2560x1600?







I am running 1920x1080 using 3DVision and fps reported are per eye.

The immersive nature of the 3D is so excellent I haven't even tried 2560x1600 on the 30" monitor.

#3
Posted 05/15/2010 04:54 PM   
[quote name='baragon' post='1056193' date='May 15 2010, 12:18 PM']Metro 2033 is an OUTSTANDING experience using 3DVision!



Metro is perhaps an extreme example of a title with very high gpu requirements (and very high image quality, unbelieveable!) but there are others (BattlefieldBC2, JustCause2).

My current rig using GTX480s SLI overclocked for example results in only 45-55fps (for each eye) in metro 2033 using only dx9, high settings no aa, plays very smooth at these settings. However using dx9 very high subtract 20fps and quite choppy, though the models look incredible . DX10 or dx11 very high give average 30 fps per eye if advanced depth of field off, with some scenes below 20fps per eye, unplayable.
Turning on advanced Physx decreases framerate by only about 5-6fps but this is enough to hurt playability.

I am running on somewhat older platform QX9650 but very overclocked and METRO2033 is not very CPU dependent according to some benchmarks by others, therefore I don't think I'm seeing cpu bottleneck.

Most other games run very well in 3DVision with just one GTX400 card. Bioshock2 runs very good using one card, the current SLI profile for GTX400 is not working for this game and apparently for some others (jUST CAUSE2 ran much better using my 2xGTX285s , a GTS250 for Physx and older drives for example).

I am pulling about 720watts from wall during intense gameplay, temps max at 94C for lower card with fans on auto which are only slightly louder than GTX285s + dedicated physx.
Overall I'm very happy with the GTX480s and expect performance will improve with 256 drivers.



[size=1][color="#ffcc00"]MOTHERBOARD: EVGA 780I SLI A2 P-06Bios
CPU: Intel 2 Core Quad QX9650 45nm(OC @ 3.83GHz FSB:1333 @ 1.3200V set in bios)prime95 all day
CPU Cooler: Gigabyte 3D Mercury case with integrated watercooling (cpu only at present)
RAM: 2x2GB OCZ PC8000 SLI (Timing:5-5-5-15-2T@ 2.0V, FSB:DRAM Ratio=2:3)
GRAPHICS: 2X EVGA GTX 480sc(clocks: 769c/1007mem/1538shader, stock heatsink)
HDD1: 2X Western Digital Caviar SATA II 250GB 7200 rpm Raid 0
HDD2: Western Digital Caviar SATA II 500GB 7200 rpm
SOUND: On board
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit SP2
MONITOR: Dell 3008wfp 30" Native Res: 2560X1600 @ 60Hz, Acer235Hz120Hz-3D
PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W
CASE: Gigabyte 3D Mercury
3DMARK Vantage: 29,686p Current Display Driver:197.41[/color][/size][/quote]

Wow, dual 480's can't max this game in 3D?!? Sheesh! I was hoping they would. I'm holding off on this game until I get my 3D hardware together... Sound good!
[quote name='baragon' post='1056193' date='May 15 2010, 12:18 PM']Metro 2033 is an OUTSTANDING experience using 3DVision!







Metro is perhaps an extreme example of a title with very high gpu requirements (and very high image quality, unbelieveable!) but there are others (BattlefieldBC2, JustCause2).



My current rig using GTX480s SLI overclocked for example results in only 45-55fps (for each eye) in metro 2033 using only dx9, high settings no aa, plays very smooth at these settings. However using dx9 very high subtract 20fps and quite choppy, though the models look incredible . DX10 or dx11 very high give average 30 fps per eye if advanced depth of field off, with some scenes below 20fps per eye, unplayable.

Turning on advanced Physx decreases framerate by only about 5-6fps but this is enough to hurt playability.



I am running on somewhat older platform QX9650 but very overclocked and METRO2033 is not very CPU dependent according to some benchmarks by others, therefore I don't think I'm seeing cpu bottleneck.



Most other games run very well in 3DVision with just one GTX400 card. Bioshock2 runs very good using one card, the current SLI profile for GTX400 is not working for this game and apparently for some others (jUST CAUSE2 ran much better using my 2xGTX285s , a GTS250 for Physx and older drives for example).



I am pulling about 720watts from wall during intense gameplay, temps max at 94C for lower card with fans on auto which are only slightly louder than GTX285s + dedicated physx.

Overall I'm very happy with the GTX480s and expect performance will improve with 256 drivers.







MOTHERBOARD: EVGA 780I SLI A2 P-06Bios

CPU: Intel 2 Core Quad QX9650 45nm(OC @ 3.83GHz FSB:1333 @ 1.3200V set in bios)prime95 all day

CPU Cooler: Gigabyte 3D Mercury case with integrated watercooling (cpu only at present)

RAM: 2x2GB OCZ PC8000 SLI (Timing:5-5-5-15-2T@ 2.0V, FSB:DRAM Ratio=2:3)

GRAPHICS: 2X EVGA GTX 480sc(clocks: 769c/1007mem/1538shader, stock heatsink)

HDD1: 2X Western Digital Caviar SATA II 250GB 7200 rpm Raid 0

HDD2: Western Digital Caviar SATA II 500GB 7200 rpm

SOUND: On board

OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit SP2

MONITOR: Dell 3008wfp 30" Native Res: 2560X1600 @ 60Hz, Acer235Hz120Hz-3D

PSU: Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W

CASE: Gigabyte 3D Mercury

3DMARK Vantage: 29,686p Current Display Driver:197.41



Wow, dual 480's can't max this game in 3D?!? Sheesh! I was hoping they would. I'm holding off on this game until I get my 3D hardware together... Sound good!

Intel Core i7 920 @ 4.20Ghz | Win7 x64 Ultimate | 7.7 WEI

EVGA GTX480 SC @ 820 Mhz SLI | Asus VG278H 27" 3D Vision 2

Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD5 F6 | 24GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1600

OCZ 240GB RevoDrive X2 | 4.0TB Hitachi/Seagate/Western Digital HDD's

MOTU UltraLite | X-Fi Titanium

Antec Nine Hundred Two | Silverstone DA1000

#4
Posted 05/15/2010 05:41 PM   
Interesting..

I have the following Quad 2.3 AMD, GTX470, 4G DDR2 ram and at 1920x1080 with 3d vision enabled, I can run Metro on High, no advanced Physx, DX11 (no DOF) at about 24-40 FPS. The Highest setting I lose 4-10 FPS. Does the game become CPU heavy on the highest setting? Oddly enough, playing with 3D on High is better than no 3D Highest.

Curious as to what other people are getting. WHAT A GREAT GAME BY THE WAY!!
Interesting..



I have the following Quad 2.3 AMD, GTX470, 4G DDR2 ram and at 1920x1080 with 3d vision enabled, I can run Metro on High, no advanced Physx, DX11 (no DOF) at about 24-40 FPS. The Highest setting I lose 4-10 FPS. Does the game become CPU heavy on the highest setting? Oddly enough, playing with 3D on High is better than no 3D Highest.



Curious as to what other people are getting. WHAT A GREAT GAME BY THE WAY!!

#5
Posted 05/15/2010 05:52 PM   
whats the best way to test 3d frame-rates with this game? personally i have this game running max everything including physx in 1080p, and i hardly ever notice any slowdowns. i have not done a official test yet. rig is in my sig...

agreed, this game is amazing in 3d!
whats the best way to test 3d frame-rates with this game? personally i have this game running max everything including physx in 1080p, and i hardly ever notice any slowdowns. i have not done a official test yet. rig is in my sig...



agreed, this game is amazing in 3d!

System:

Intel I7 920 overclocked to 4ghz

Asus Rampage Extreme II

2 Ge-force 480 in SLI

GTX 295 PhysX Card

12gb ddr3 2000mhz ram

Intel SSD in RAID 0

BR RW

1000w Sony surround sound

NVIDIA 3D Vision



3d displays tested:



Mitsubishi 65" DLP 3d HDTV (good old 1080p checkerboard since 2007!!!)

Panasonic VT25 (nice 2d but I returned it due to cross talk)

Acer H5360 720p on 130" screen (the best 3d)

23" Acer LCD monitor (horrible cross talk- sold it)

Samsung 65D8000

#6
Posted 05/15/2010 06:20 PM   
Something does not seem right here.

I am running a slightly overclocked GTX260 SLI with AMD Phenom 940 and Metro 2033 gets me 20-30 fps per eye in DX10 when maxed out...depending if its indoors outdoors...etc

Granted I am running is in 1766x992 (stupid 3D DLP overscan) but that shouldn't make much of a difference.

GTX480 sli should be able to do a hell of a lot better for the price.
Something does not seem right here.



I am running a slightly overclocked GTX260 SLI with AMD Phenom 940 and Metro 2033 gets me 20-30 fps per eye in DX10 when maxed out...depending if its indoors outdoors...etc



Granted I am running is in 1766x992 (stupid 3D DLP overscan) but that shouldn't make much of a difference.



GTX480 sli should be able to do a hell of a lot better for the price.

#7
Posted 05/15/2010 07:21 PM   
I to am using GTX 260 SLi and a E8500 and i get about 25-35fps each eye maxed out settings @ 1680x 1050
I to am using GTX 260 SLi and a E8500 and i get about 25-35fps each eye maxed out settings @ 1680x 1050

#8
Posted 05/15/2010 07:31 PM   
[quote name='disolitude' post='1056254' date='May 15 2010, 12:21 PM']Something does not seem right here.

I am running a slightly overclocked GTX260 SLI with AMD Phenom 940 and Metro 2033 gets me 20-30 fps per eye in DX10 when maxed out...depending if its indoors outdoors...etc

Granted I am running is in 1766x992 (stupid 3D DLP overscan) but that shouldn't make much of a difference.

GTX480 sli should be able to do a hell of a lot better for the price.[/quote]

I used to think the same thing about the overscan, but now I've come to see it as sort of a lucky break lol. Jumping up to 1920x1080 seems to really kill the fps, even with 480's in SLI!!! With DLP we kinda catch a break, since it seems like a single 480 will do a great job at that resolution. Someone one here told me that his 480 gets about 10fps more (in 3D) than his old 280 SLI setup, but I forgot which resolution that was at.

I think Avatar was the first game that I had to turn off some of the effects in order to maintain decent fps in 3D. Same thing for Bad Company 2, but after finishing both of those games I bought Assassin's Creed 2 and that game looks AMAZING with everything turned up....but the framerate was terrible. It still looks good in 3D with things lowered, but I decided that I was not going to play that game anymore (just finished up the first city) until I upgraded. So I had a fairly decent run with my GTX 280, but in a little over a week that card will be assigned to full time physx duty with a GTX 480 for the graphics. That should be a MAJOR jump in 3D performance.

I haven't even picked up Metro 2033 yet for those same reasons. Reminds me of Crysis a few years back, when I upgraded from a single 8800GTX to 8800GTX SLI, since before that every game ran perfect at 1920x1200. Now that even a cheap card can run pretty much all games at 1920x1200, 3D has raised the bar again lol, so time for another upgrade :)

It'll just be a bummer after I finish the small handful of games that have recently come out that actually warrant the need for a GTX 480, since nothing is coming out for a long time, until around August I think. So I'll catch up on some old games I never played, but those definitely won't need the 480.

On another note, has anyone noticed a major boost in Metro 2033 from having a dedicated physx card? I am sure someone out there upgraded to a 480 and put their 280/285 on physx duty...or did all of you guys sell them off?
[quote name='disolitude' post='1056254' date='May 15 2010, 12:21 PM']Something does not seem right here.



I am running a slightly overclocked GTX260 SLI with AMD Phenom 940 and Metro 2033 gets me 20-30 fps per eye in DX10 when maxed out...depending if its indoors outdoors...etc



Granted I am running is in 1766x992 (stupid 3D DLP overscan) but that shouldn't make much of a difference.



GTX480 sli should be able to do a hell of a lot better for the price.



I used to think the same thing about the overscan, but now I've come to see it as sort of a lucky break lol. Jumping up to 1920x1080 seems to really kill the fps, even with 480's in SLI!!! With DLP we kinda catch a break, since it seems like a single 480 will do a great job at that resolution. Someone one here told me that his 480 gets about 10fps more (in 3D) than his old 280 SLI setup, but I forgot which resolution that was at.



I think Avatar was the first game that I had to turn off some of the effects in order to maintain decent fps in 3D. Same thing for Bad Company 2, but after finishing both of those games I bought Assassin's Creed 2 and that game looks AMAZING with everything turned up....but the framerate was terrible. It still looks good in 3D with things lowered, but I decided that I was not going to play that game anymore (just finished up the first city) until I upgraded. So I had a fairly decent run with my GTX 280, but in a little over a week that card will be assigned to full time physx duty with a GTX 480 for the graphics. That should be a MAJOR jump in 3D performance.



I haven't even picked up Metro 2033 yet for those same reasons. Reminds me of Crysis a few years back, when I upgraded from a single 8800GTX to 8800GTX SLI, since before that every game ran perfect at 1920x1200. Now that even a cheap card can run pretty much all games at 1920x1200, 3D has raised the bar again lol, so time for another upgrade :)



It'll just be a bummer after I finish the small handful of games that have recently come out that actually warrant the need for a GTX 480, since nothing is coming out for a long time, until around August I think. So I'll catch up on some old games I never played, but those definitely won't need the 480.



On another note, has anyone noticed a major boost in Metro 2033 from having a dedicated physx card? I am sure someone out there upgraded to a 480 and put their 280/285 on physx duty...or did all of you guys sell them off?

#9
Posted 05/15/2010 07:45 PM   
[quote name='redman223' post='1056264' date='May 15 2010, 09:45 PM']On another note, has anyone noticed a major boost in Metro 2033 from having a dedicated physx card? I am sure someone out there upgraded to a 480 and put their 280/285 on physx duty...or did all of you guys sell them off?[/quote]

I sold my 285 when I bought a 480..but I'm also curious if adding that card again would help in crank-up metro2033.
[quote name='redman223' post='1056264' date='May 15 2010, 09:45 PM']On another note, has anyone noticed a major boost in Metro 2033 from having a dedicated physx card? I am sure someone out there upgraded to a 480 and put their 280/285 on physx duty...or did all of you guys sell them off?



I sold my 285 when I bought a 480..but I'm also curious if adding that card again would help in crank-up metro2033.

Intel I7 3820 3.8 Ghz,MSI MS7760 Motherboard, 6GB )2x MSI GTX670 (SLI),OCZ Vertex 230Gb SSD,OCZ Agility 120Gb SSD, Asus 3D VG278HR ,Optoma HD67 3D DLP Beamer with 95inch 2.5 gain screen.

#10
Posted 05/15/2010 08:11 PM   
[quote name='redman223' post='1056264' date='May 15 2010, 03:45 PM']I used to think the same thing about the overscan, but now I've come to see it as sort of a lucky break lol. Jumping up to 1920x1080 seems to really kill the fps, even with 480's in SLI!!! With DLP we kinda catch a break, since it seems like a single 480 will do a great job at that resolution. Someone one here told me that his 480 gets about 10fps more (in 3D) than his old 280 SLI setup, but I forgot which resolution that was at.

I think Avatar was the first game that I had to turn off some of the effects in order to maintain decent fps in 3D. Same thing for Bad Company 2, but after finishing both of those games I bought Assassin's Creed 2 and that game looks AMAZING with everything turned up....but the framerate was terrible. It still looks good in 3D with things lowered, but I decided that I was not going to play that game anymore (just finished up the first city) until I upgraded. So I had a fairly decent run with my GTX 280, but in a little over a week that card will be assigned to full time physx duty with a GTX 480 for the graphics. That should be a MAJOR jump in 3D performance.

I haven't even picked up Metro 2033 yet for those same reasons. Reminds me of Crysis a few years back, when I upgraded from a single 8800GTX to 8800GTX SLI, since before that every game ran perfect at 1920x1200. Now that even a cheap card can run pretty much all games at 1920x1200, 3D has raised the bar again lol, so time for another upgrade :)

It'll just be a bummer after I finish the small handful of games that have recently come out that actually warrant the need for a GTX 480, since nothing is coming out for a long time, until around August I think. So I'll catch up on some old games I never played, but those definitely won't need the 480.

On another note, has anyone noticed a major boost in Metro 2033 from having a dedicated physx card? I am sure someone out there upgraded to a 480 and put their 280/285 on physx duty...or did all of you guys sell them off?[/quote]
Yeah I guess overscan isn't all that bad :)

However 480 SLI doing anything less than 30 frames per second in Metro 2033 is bad. Hell, logically considering that 2 GTX260 cards can stay in the md 20 to mid 30 range, a single GTX480 should do 30 FPS. In any case, it seems that the older cards are not so bad. Hopefully 3D vision adds 3 SLI support as I think id rather get a 3rd GTX260 than deal with the 480 at this point at time.
[quote name='redman223' post='1056264' date='May 15 2010, 03:45 PM']I used to think the same thing about the overscan, but now I've come to see it as sort of a lucky break lol. Jumping up to 1920x1080 seems to really kill the fps, even with 480's in SLI!!! With DLP we kinda catch a break, since it seems like a single 480 will do a great job at that resolution. Someone one here told me that his 480 gets about 10fps more (in 3D) than his old 280 SLI setup, but I forgot which resolution that was at.



I think Avatar was the first game that I had to turn off some of the effects in order to maintain decent fps in 3D. Same thing for Bad Company 2, but after finishing both of those games I bought Assassin's Creed 2 and that game looks AMAZING with everything turned up....but the framerate was terrible. It still looks good in 3D with things lowered, but I decided that I was not going to play that game anymore (just finished up the first city) until I upgraded. So I had a fairly decent run with my GTX 280, but in a little over a week that card will be assigned to full time physx duty with a GTX 480 for the graphics. That should be a MAJOR jump in 3D performance.



I haven't even picked up Metro 2033 yet for those same reasons. Reminds me of Crysis a few years back, when I upgraded from a single 8800GTX to 8800GTX SLI, since before that every game ran perfect at 1920x1200. Now that even a cheap card can run pretty much all games at 1920x1200, 3D has raised the bar again lol, so time for another upgrade :)



It'll just be a bummer after I finish the small handful of games that have recently come out that actually warrant the need for a GTX 480, since nothing is coming out for a long time, until around August I think. So I'll catch up on some old games I never played, but those definitely won't need the 480.



On another note, has anyone noticed a major boost in Metro 2033 from having a dedicated physx card? I am sure someone out there upgraded to a 480 and put their 280/285 on physx duty...or did all of you guys sell them off?

Yeah I guess overscan isn't all that bad :)



However 480 SLI doing anything less than 30 frames per second in Metro 2033 is bad. Hell, logically considering that 2 GTX260 cards can stay in the md 20 to mid 30 range, a single GTX480 should do 30 FPS. In any case, it seems that the older cards are not so bad. Hopefully 3D vision adds 3 SLI support as I think id rather get a 3rd GTX260 than deal with the 480 at this point at time.

#11
Posted 05/15/2010 10:25 PM   
3d perfectly playable here in 720p with 2x GTS250. Hovers a round 30-50 fps. Not bad for 164 usd. Oh, and I see aliasing only occasionally. Imho Fullhd is VASTLY overrated.
Im definately going for advanced physics once I have the GTX.
3d perfectly playable here in 720p with 2x GTS250. Hovers a round 30-50 fps. Not bad for 164 usd. Oh, and I see aliasing only occasionally. Imho Fullhd is VASTLY overrated.

Im definately going for advanced physics once I have the GTX.

#12
Posted 05/16/2010 03:55 AM   
[quote name='tritosine' post='1056441' date='May 15 2010, 09:55 PM']3d perfectly playable here in 720p with 2x GTS250. Hovers a round 30-50 fps. Not bad for 164 usd. Oh, and I see aliasing only occasionally. Imho Fullhd is VASTLY overrated.
Im definately going for advanced physics once I have the GTX.[/quote]
1080P destroys 720P on anything above 55" TV's. Otherwise I agree.
[quote name='tritosine' post='1056441' date='May 15 2010, 09:55 PM']3d perfectly playable here in 720p with 2x GTS250. Hovers a round 30-50 fps. Not bad for 164 usd. Oh, and I see aliasing only occasionally. Imho Fullhd is VASTLY overrated.

Im definately going for advanced physics once I have the GTX.

1080P destroys 720P on anything above 55" TV's. Otherwise I agree.

#13
Posted 05/16/2010 05:10 AM   
[quote name='whodamanxbox' post='1056451' date='May 15 2010, 10:10 PM']1080P destroys 720P on anything above 55" TV's. Otherwise I agree.[/quote]

For sure, those that say otherwise are using small screens. My dad has a 70" Sony, I have a 60" Mitsubishi and I have a friend with a 42" Panasonic, and of all the screens the Panasonic looks the best with 720p content, the level of visual quality is pretty much equal amongst all 3 TV's but the 42" is doing it at a lower resolution. When we ran some 1080p stuff on it, I really couldn't tell a difference on his screen. However, with both my dads tv and my own tv, the difference is easily noticeable.
[quote name='whodamanxbox' post='1056451' date='May 15 2010, 10:10 PM']1080P destroys 720P on anything above 55" TV's. Otherwise I agree.



For sure, those that say otherwise are using small screens. My dad has a 70" Sony, I have a 60" Mitsubishi and I have a friend with a 42" Panasonic, and of all the screens the Panasonic looks the best with 720p content, the level of visual quality is pretty much equal amongst all 3 TV's but the 42" is doing it at a lower resolution. When we ran some 1080p stuff on it, I really couldn't tell a difference on his screen. However, with both my dads tv and my own tv, the difference is easily noticeable.

#14
Posted 05/16/2010 06:50 AM   
It's not just how large the screen is but how close you are to it. I can tell the difference of going from my old 1680x1050 monitor to my new 1920x1080 one and that isn't even as big a jump as 1280x720 to 1920x1080 is.
It's not just how large the screen is but how close you are to it. I can tell the difference of going from my old 1680x1050 monitor to my new 1920x1080 one and that isn't even as big a jump as 1280x720 to 1920x1080 is.

#15
Posted 05/16/2010 10:48 AM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top