Thanks to MTBS3D for the news, it's unofficial though http://www.mtbs3d.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13672:news-for-3d-vision-gamers&catid=35:news&Itemid=73 . Apparently only the 4K monitors are not compatible.
So that's going to be a lot of new potential 3d users out there!
So that's going to be a lot of new potential 3d users out there!
All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com
Yea for me it is hard to invest in 1440p G-SYNC when a 4K monitor G-SYNC is being demoed at CES. That to me is the ultimate use for G-SYNC, gaming at 4K. Hopefully the 120 HZ 4k tech comes out sooner than later =).
Yea for me it is hard to invest in 1440p G-SYNC when a 4K monitor G-SYNC is being demoed at CES. That to me is the ultimate use for G-SYNC, gaming at 4K. Hopefully the 120 HZ 4k tech comes out sooner than later =).
Intel i7-2600K OC 4.5 GHZ CPU | EVGA Titan X SC GPU | Corsair RM 1000 GOLD PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM | ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 MOBO |
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Monitor | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Case
Now that's exciting stuff. Hearing that variable refresh rates of G-Sync will improve the quality of 3D Vision means its been tested and it works and also including it in every G-Sync monitor mean that 3D Vision "support" isn't dying.
Of course what will really improve the quality of 3D Vision is proper tools or developer support for DX11 games. That's the news we really want.
Now that's exciting stuff. Hearing that variable refresh rates of G-Sync will improve the quality of 3D Vision means its been tested and it works and also including it in every G-Sync monitor mean that 3D Vision "support" isn't dying.
Of course what will really improve the quality of 3D Vision is proper tools or developer support for DX11 games. That's the news we really want.
3D Vision Surround | Driver 359.00 | Windows 7
GTX 980 SLI | i7 3770K @ 4.2 GHz | 16 GB RAM
3x ASUS VG248QE w/ G-SYNC
[quote="Arioch1"]Not to be a pessimist but I want official confirmation on the 3D Vision support, especially with how it seems Nvidia is letting it die off quietly.[/quote]
My gut tells me NVidia's mid-January announcement will be official confirmation of this.
Arioch1 said:Not to be a pessimist but I want official confirmation on the 3D Vision support, especially with how it seems Nvidia is letting it die off quietly.
My gut tells me NVidia's mid-January announcement will be official confirmation of this.
3D Vision Surround | Driver 359.00 | Windows 7
GTX 980 SLI | i7 3770K @ 4.2 GHz | 16 GB RAM
3x ASUS VG248QE w/ G-SYNC
Not sure why people want 4k @ 120hz... Its not realistically possible at this point in time.
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
[url]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620-10.html[/url]
SLI Titan's averaged around 45fps in a variety of current gen games.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.
Not sure why people want 4k @ 120hz... Its not realistically possible at this point in time.
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
[quote="eqzitara"]Not sure why people want 4k @ 120hz... Its not realistically possible at this point in time.
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
[url]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620-10.html[/url]
SLI Titan's averaged around 45fps in a variety of current gen games.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.[/quote]
Sure right now it may seem funny, however the technology is not going to instantly develop.
Most of what I said is related to the future. It would be nice if the displays are available at the same time next gen GPUs are available to power them. Not to mention the ability to lower the resolution and still play your favorite 3D games at 1080p, since the screen scaling should be no problem (halving the height and width). It would also be more future-proof, rather than having to purchase another 4k monitor 1-2 years down the road.
G-Sync should also be very playable at 45-50 fps (non-3d) @ 4K which is attracting me to the monitors.
eqzitara said:Not sure why people want 4k @ 120hz... Its not realistically possible at this point in time.
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.
Sure right now it may seem funny, however the technology is not going to instantly develop.
Most of what I said is related to the future. It would be nice if the displays are available at the same time next gen GPUs are available to power them. Not to mention the ability to lower the resolution and still play your favorite 3D games at 1080p, since the screen scaling should be no problem (halving the height and width). It would also be more future-proof, rather than having to purchase another 4k monitor 1-2 years down the road.
G-Sync should also be very playable at 45-50 fps (non-3d) @ 4K which is attracting me to the monitors.
Intel i7-2600K OC 4.5 GHZ CPU | EVGA Titan X SC GPU | Corsair RM 1000 GOLD PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM | ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 MOBO |
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Monitor | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Case
With a 4K monitor you are still getting the same FOV/aspect ratio as a 1080p right? Why would you want to render 4 times the pixels for such a small screen? Id much rather have something that can replace (or come close to) surround experience from 1 monitor, like 21:9 aspect ratio.
4k gaming seems like a huge waste of rendering.
With a 4K monitor you are still getting the same FOV/aspect ratio as a 1080p right? Why would you want to render 4 times the pixels for such a small screen? Id much rather have something that can replace (or come close to) surround experience from 1 monitor, like 21:9 aspect ratio.
No.
With 4K you got bigger viewing area on the screen. Resolution goes higher and you get more piksels on same size matrix - then you end up having more details which on smaller resoution been out of the screen.
No.
With 4K you got bigger viewing area on the screen. Resolution goes higher and you get more piksels on same size matrix - then you end up having more details which on smaller resoution been out of the screen.
[quote="birthright"]Apparently only the 4K monitors are not compatible.
So that's going to be a lot of new potential 3d users out there![/quote]
As far as I know, most of the 4K monitors top out at 30hz, and some hit 60 but it's not the norm yet. Playing at 4k in 3D is still a ways off.
[quote="eqzitara"]Not sure why people want 4k @ 120hz... Its not realistically possible at this point in time.
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
[url]http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620-10.html[/url]
SLI Titan's averaged around 45fps in a variety of current gen games.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.[/quote]
There's nothing wrong with future proofing. I'd love to have a 120hz 4k monitor because at some point, my PC WILL be able to pull that off and I'd love to have the option already whenever it's available and not need to get a new display.
[quote="Conan481"]With a 4K monitor you are still getting the same FOV/aspect ratio as a 1080p right? Why would you want to render 4 times the pixels for such a small screen? Id much rather have something that can replace (or come close to) surround experience from 1 monitor, like 21:9 aspect ratio.
4k gaming seems like a huge waste of rendering.[/quote]
All I can really tell you is that you should try it.
It's the same field of view and aspect ratio, but you get WAY more detail and much less aliasing.
You have to remember that while the screen may seem small for 4K, even a 28" 4k screen still has a DPI of only around 150, while retina displays on apple products have a DPI of around 300.
It may seem small relative to movie theaters and giant TV's, but we sit WAY closer to our monitors than we do either of those other things, so they need to be bigger.
birthright said:Apparently only the 4K monitors are not compatible.
So that's going to be a lot of new potential 3d users out there!
As far as I know, most of the 4K monitors top out at 30hz, and some hit 60 but it's not the norm yet. Playing at 4k in 3D is still a ways off.
eqzitara said:Not sure why people want 4k @ 120hz... Its not realistically possible at this point in time.
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.
There's nothing wrong with future proofing. I'd love to have a 120hz 4k monitor because at some point, my PC WILL be able to pull that off and I'd love to have the option already whenever it's available and not need to get a new display.
Conan481 said:With a 4K monitor you are still getting the same FOV/aspect ratio as a 1080p right? Why would you want to render 4 times the pixels for such a small screen? Id much rather have something that can replace (or come close to) surround experience from 1 monitor, like 21:9 aspect ratio.
4k gaming seems like a huge waste of rendering.
All I can really tell you is that you should try it.
It's the same field of view and aspect ratio, but you get WAY more detail and much less aliasing.
You have to remember that while the screen may seem small for 4K, even a 28" 4k screen still has a DPI of only around 150, while retina displays on apple products have a DPI of around 300.
It may seem small relative to movie theaters and giant TV's, but we sit WAY closer to our monitors than we do either of those other things, so they need to be bigger.
I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...
I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...
[quote="Likay"]I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...[/quote]
The main difference is going to be relative to the size of the panel as well as how close you game to it. I do agree with smaller screens the increased PPI will get to a point where your eyes will not be able to discern the difference.
Likay said:I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...
The main difference is going to be relative to the size of the panel as well as how close you game to it. I do agree with smaller screens the increased PPI will get to a point where your eyes will not be able to discern the difference.
Intel i7-2600K OC 4.5 GHZ CPU | EVGA Titan X SC GPU | Corsair RM 1000 GOLD PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM | ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 MOBO |
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Monitor | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Case
[quote="Likay"]I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...[/quote]
Come on.
480p - Total image resolution 337,920 pixels
720p - Total image resolution 921,600 pixels
1080p - Total image resolution 2,073,600 pixels
4K - Resolution starts from 3840 x 2160 which is 8,294,400 and goes up to 5120 x 3200 with 16,384,000 !
Viewing area will be significantly bigger.
We wont be seeing this res with 3D support yet but that is something what everybody who`s using 3D Nvidia Surround understand and asking for with every game.
Likay said:I disagree a little. The difference between 720 and 1080 is not so big and the difference between 1080 and 4k is going to be a lot less. Imo there are other areas where focus should be but the hype for the "enourmous" visual quality difference between 1080 and 4k is what really sells. Just saying...
Come on.
480p - Total image resolution 337,920 pixels
720p - Total image resolution 921,600 pixels
1080p - Total image resolution 2,073,600 pixels
4K - Resolution starts from 3840 x 2160 which is 8,294,400 and goes up to 5120 x 3200 with 16,384,000 !
Viewing area will be significantly bigger.
We wont be seeing this res with 3D support yet but that is something what everybody who`s using 3D Nvidia Surround understand and asking for with every game.
So that's going to be a lot of new potential 3d users out there!
All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198014296177/
Intel i7-2600K OC 4.5 GHZ CPU | EVGA Titan X SC GPU | Corsair RM 1000 GOLD PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM | ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 MOBO |
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Monitor | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Case
Of course what will really improve the quality of 3D Vision is proper tools or developer support for DX11 games. That's the news we really want.
3D Vision Surround | Driver 359.00 | Windows 7
GTX 980 SLI | i7 3770K @ 4.2 GHz | 16 GB RAM
3x ASUS VG248QE w/ G-SYNC
1080 GTX 8GB SLI | I7-4770K@4.5GHz | 16GB RAM | Win10x64
Asus ROG Swift PG278Q | 3D Vision 2
My gut tells me NVidia's mid-January announcement will be official confirmation of this.
3D Vision Surround | Driver 359.00 | Windows 7
GTX 980 SLI | i7 3770K @ 4.2 GHz | 16 GB RAM
3x ASUS VG248QE w/ G-SYNC
You would need around quad sli titans's and I am uncertain that will still be true 6 months from now.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pq321q-4k-gaming,3620-10.html
SLI Titan's averaged around 45fps in a variety of current gen games.
1440p would require two very high end cards in sli and that makes the most sense as plausible in 120hz/3d gaming. I still think you would have to recycle[toss] those those cards every year and a half MAX unless you mind framerates at sub 90fps.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/chtiblue/album/530b52d4cb85770d6e000049/3Dvision with 49" Philips 49PUS7100 interlieved 3D (3840x2160) overide mode, GTX 1080 GFA2 EXOC, core i5 @4.3GHz, 16Gb@2130, windows 7&10 64bit, Dolby Atmos 5.1.4 Marantz 6010 AVR
Sure right now it may seem funny, however the technology is not going to instantly develop.
Most of what I said is related to the future. It would be nice if the displays are available at the same time next gen GPUs are available to power them. Not to mention the ability to lower the resolution and still play your favorite 3D games at 1080p, since the screen scaling should be no problem (halving the height and width). It would also be more future-proof, rather than having to purchase another 4k monitor 1-2 years down the road.
G-Sync should also be very playable at 45-50 fps (non-3d) @ 4K which is attracting me to the monitors.
Intel i7-2600K OC 4.5 GHZ CPU | EVGA Titan X SC GPU | Corsair RM 1000 GOLD PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM | ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 MOBO |
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Monitor | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Case
4k gaming seems like a huge waste of rendering.
With 4K you got bigger viewing area on the screen. Resolution goes higher and you get more piksels on same size matrix - then you end up having more details which on smaller resoution been out of the screen.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198014296177/
As far as I know, most of the 4K monitors top out at 30hz, and some hit 60 but it's not the norm yet. Playing at 4k in 3D is still a ways off.
There's nothing wrong with future proofing. I'd love to have a 120hz 4k monitor because at some point, my PC WILL be able to pull that off and I'd love to have the option already whenever it's available and not need to get a new display.
All I can really tell you is that you should try it.
It's the same field of view and aspect ratio, but you get WAY more detail and much less aliasing.
You have to remember that while the screen may seem small for 4K, even a 28" 4k screen still has a DPI of only around 150, while retina displays on apple products have a DPI of around 300.
It may seem small relative to movie theaters and giant TV's, but we sit WAY closer to our monitors than we do either of those other things, so they need to be bigger.
Mb: Asus P5W DH Deluxe
Cpu: C2D E6600
Gb: Nvidia 7900GT + 8800GTX
3D:100" passive projector polarized setup + 22" IZ3D
Stereodrivers: Iz3d & Tridef ignition and nvidia old school.
The main difference is going to be relative to the size of the panel as well as how close you game to it. I do agree with smaller screens the increased PPI will get to a point where your eyes will not be able to discern the difference.
Intel i7-2600K OC 4.5 GHZ CPU | EVGA Titan X SC GPU | Corsair RM 1000 GOLD PSU
G.SKILL Ripjaws X Series 16GB DDR3 1600 RAM | ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3 MOBO |
ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q Monitor | Corsair Carbide Air 540 Case
Come on.
480p - Total image resolution 337,920 pixels
720p - Total image resolution 921,600 pixels
1080p - Total image resolution 2,073,600 pixels
4K - Resolution starts from 3840 x 2160 which is 8,294,400 and goes up to 5120 x 3200 with 16,384,000 !
Viewing area will be significantly bigger.
We wont be seeing this res with 3D support yet but that is something what everybody who`s using 3D Nvidia Surround understand and asking for with every game.
https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198014296177/