Why is my performance cut in half when enabling passive 3D?
While I get 60 fps in 2D, I only get about 30 fps in 3D. What doesn't make sense is that I have a passive set so it should be the same amount of frames and pixels, just 540p in each eye. Shouldn't my performance therefore be identical in either 2D or passive 3D since the result in both scenarios is a 1080p picture with the same amount of detail?
While I get 60 fps in 2D, I only get about 30 fps in 3D. What doesn't make sense is that I have a passive set so it should be the same amount of frames and pixels, just 540p in each eye. Shouldn't my performance therefore be identical in either 2D or passive 3D since the result in both scenarios is a 1080p picture with the same amount of detail?
Because the GPU still has to render 2 worlds. Im also using a 42" passive 3D tv with edid hack to game, but the GPU still has to process 2 worlds, one for left and one for right eye :)
The loss of quality vertically....is just inevitability for passive screens :)
But still, I prefer having passive on huge screen over active 3D on small screens....
Huge screens are much more immersive in my opinion
Because the GPU still has to render 2 worlds. Im also using a 42" passive 3D tv with edid hack to game, but the GPU still has to process 2 worlds, one for left and one for right eye :)
The loss of quality vertically....is just inevitability for passive screens :)
But still, I prefer having passive on huge screen over active 3D on small screens....
Huge screens are much more immersive in my opinion
The loss of quality vertically....is just inevitability for passive screens :)
But still, I prefer having passive on huge screen over active 3D on small screens....
Huge screens are much more immersive in my opinion
Win 7 64bit ; i7 4790K ; GTX 980 ASUS OC ;10 gb ram ; 353.06 ; 42" edid 3Dvision passive interleaved screen