3D Vision Ultra Settings Question
IF you have a single 780M with a i7-4930MX, can you play a game like Crysis 2 or Sleeping Dogs with max settings without visual lag (noticable lag ~ not noticable numbers lag) with 3D Vision on (no sli)? What should one's 3Dmark benchmark be in order to accomplish this?
IF you have a single 780M with a i7-4930MX, can you play a game like Crysis 2 or Sleeping Dogs with max settings without visual lag (noticable lag ~ not noticable numbers lag) with 3D Vision on (no sli)?

What should one's 3Dmark benchmark be in order to accomplish this?

Model: Clevo P570WM Laptop
GPU: GeForce GTX 980M ~8GB GDDR5
CPU: Intel Core i7-4960X CPU +4.2GHz (12 CPUs)
Memory: 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3L 1600MHz, 4x8gb
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

#1
Posted 11/18/2013 10:22 PM   
The basic rule of thumb is: take the fps you get in a game in 2D, and then halve it for 3Dvision. So, for example, if you get 46 fps in a game normally, then you'll get 23fps in 3Dvision. It doesn't always work out this clinically (you sometimes get a bit more than half), but it's a good rule of thumb. Looking at these two reviews.... [url]http://www.notebookcheck.net/In-Review-Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-780M-GTX-770M-GTX-765M.93277.0.html[/url] [url]http://www.anandtech.com/show/7076/msi-gt70-dragon-edition-notebook-review-haswell-and-the-gtx-780m/3[/url] ...it looks like you'll struggle to max out some of the newer games even in 2D (though will be fine with others). It also depends on what you consider an acceptable framerate. I generally find anything below 50fps (which is actually 100fps in 3D of course) to be uncomfortable, and anything below 40fps (80fps in 3D) is borderline unplayable. But some people are perfectly ok with 25fps (50fps in 3D).
The basic rule of thumb is: take the fps you get in a game in 2D, and then halve it for 3Dvision. So, for example, if you get 46 fps in a game normally, then you'll get 23fps in 3Dvision. It doesn't always work out this clinically (you sometimes get a bit more than half), but it's a good rule of thumb.

Looking at these two reviews....
http://www.notebookcheck.net/In-Review-Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-780M-GTX-770M-GTX-765M.93277.0.html http://www.anandtech.com/show/7076/msi-gt70-dragon-edition-notebook-review-haswell-and-the-gtx-780m/3

...it looks like you'll struggle to max out some of the newer games even in 2D (though will be fine with others).

It also depends on what you consider an acceptable framerate. I generally find anything below 50fps (which is actually 100fps in 3D of course) to be uncomfortable, and anything below 40fps (80fps in 3D) is borderline unplayable. But some people are perfectly ok with 25fps (50fps in 3D).

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#2
Posted 11/19/2013 05:48 AM   
Personally, I'd be more than happy just to play games in 3D on my laptop and not worry about 'maxing' out the settings. The desktop in my sig below still struggles with Crysis1! I think Crysis2 was one of the 1st games I played when I built a "gaming pc" some years ago. Crysis2 creates its own 3D and I was able to mostly play it on a single GTX460 card. I'd suggest checking out the "www.notebookcheck.net" listed above and compare what that 780M can do compared to its nearest desktop card for performance. Then like Volnaiskra suggested above, check out benchmarks and settings used then apply some "guestimate" math. A 50% FPS loss is a reasonable estimate. I suppose if you really want to play something in 3D on your laptop you'll end up purchasing whatever title no matter what the benchmarks show it might perform at and simply turn down eye candy and resolution until it plays well enough to tolerate. :)
Personally, I'd be more than happy just to play games in 3D on my laptop and not worry about 'maxing' out the settings. The desktop in my sig below still struggles with Crysis1! I think Crysis2 was one of the 1st games I played when I built a "gaming pc" some years ago. Crysis2 creates its own 3D and I was able to mostly play it on a single GTX460 card.

I'd suggest checking out the "www.notebookcheck.net" listed above and compare what that 780M can do compared to its nearest desktop card for performance. Then like Volnaiskra suggested above, check out benchmarks and settings used then apply some "guestimate" math. A 50% FPS loss is a reasonable estimate.

I suppose if you really want to play something in 3D on your laptop you'll end up purchasing whatever title no matter what the benchmarks show it might perform at and simply turn down eye candy and resolution until it plays well enough to tolerate. :)

i7-2600K-4.5Ghz/Corsair H100i/8GB/GTX780SC-SLI/Win7-64/1200W-PSU/Samsung 840-500GB SSD/Coolermaster-Tower/Benq 1080ST @ 100"

#3
Posted 11/19/2013 06:42 AM   
Yep, even 3D with all settings set to low will give you a better visual and immersive experience than 2D with all settings on max.
Yep, even 3D with all settings set to low will give you a better visual and immersive experience than 2D with all settings on max.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#4
Posted 11/19/2013 09:13 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]The basic rule of thumb is: take the fps you get in a game in 2D, and then halve it for 3Dvision. So, for example, if you get 46 fps in a game normally, then you'll get 23fps in 3Dvision. It doesn't always work out this clinically (you sometimes get a bit more than half), but it's a good rule of thumb.[/quote] That is always true for mono GPU. However on SLI setups you might experience some weird things like: having 48fps in 2D and having 42 in 3D. I think it gets down to how efficient and optimized the SLI profile is... (not to mention that sometimes with a bad profile you could go from 48fps to 15fps which is way lower than 1/2) But yes 1/2 is what normally should expect from mono GPU. 3D vision was created with SLI in mind and thus SLI greatly improves (or not) your performance:)
Volnaiskra said:The basic rule of thumb is: take the fps you get in a game in 2D, and then halve it for 3Dvision. So, for example, if you get 46 fps in a game normally, then you'll get 23fps in 3Dvision. It doesn't always work out this clinically (you sometimes get a bit more than half), but it's a good rule of thumb.


That is always true for mono GPU. However on SLI setups you might experience some weird things like:
having 48fps in 2D and having 42 in 3D. I think it gets down to how efficient and optimized the SLI profile is... (not to mention that sometimes with a bad profile you could go from 48fps to 15fps which is way lower than 1/2)

But yes 1/2 is what normally should expect from mono GPU. 3D vision was created with SLI in mind and thus SLI greatly improves (or not) your performance:)

1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc


My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com

(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)

#5
Posted 11/19/2013 03:26 PM   
Okay, thanks guys. I just learned that you don't really need AA at max and that the number in front of AA means the internal rez of what you're rendering the game in. So if you have a game that is rendered in 720p by default and you increase the rez to 1080p, you either need a normal AA or no AA at all considering 2xAA = Native Rez x 2 (2560 x 1440 if int rez is 720p). So this helps out alot when I'm just sticking to 1080p. With that now known, my current laptop does alright using this rationality. And with the first posts stats, I'm sure it'll be more than alright (because I'm not trying to overdue it with 4k AA on something that's not 4k). Also, I forgot to mention that the processor that goes along with this graphics card is a i7-4930MX. So, I believe that my problem was maxing out the AA when I don't really need to. What is NFS:MW native rez anyway? When I put on 2x supersampling, it is unplayable for me right now on my current machine in 3d vision and 2D. When I say no supersampling, everything is ok (everything else can go to max). Probably at 1080p already with the high res textures on right?
Okay, thanks guys.

I just learned that you don't really need AA at max and that the number in front of AA means the internal rez of what you're rendering the game in. So if you have a game that is rendered in 720p by default and you increase the rez to 1080p, you either need a normal AA or no AA at all considering 2xAA = Native Rez x 2 (2560 x 1440 if int rez is 720p). So this helps out alot when I'm just sticking to 1080p. With that now known, my current laptop does alright using this rationality. And with the first posts stats, I'm sure it'll be more than alright (because I'm not trying to overdue it with 4k AA on something that's not 4k).

Also, I forgot to mention that the processor that goes along with this graphics card is a i7-4930MX.

So, I believe that my problem was maxing out the AA when I don't really need to. What is NFS:MW native rez anyway? When I put on 2x supersampling, it is unplayable for me right now on my current machine in 3d vision and 2D. When I say no supersampling, everything is ok (everything else can go to max). Probably at 1080p already with the high res textures on right?

Model: Clevo P570WM Laptop
GPU: GeForce GTX 980M ~8GB GDDR5
CPU: Intel Core i7-4960X CPU +4.2GHz (12 CPUs)
Memory: 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3L 1600MHz, 4x8gb
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

#6
Posted 11/19/2013 08:56 PM   
Games don't really have native resolutions. They're built to support lots of resolutions, to account for the different native resolutions of different screens. So when you think "native res" in NFS:MW, think the highest resolution that your screen can go to - that'll be the best-looking res (your screen will support lower resolutions too, but as well as having larger pixels, these will likely look a little muddy or blurry, since they aren't native for your screen). [quote="Shinra358"]I just learned that you don't really need AA at max and that the number in front of AA means the internal rez of what you're rendering the game in. [/quote]That only describes one type of of AA: supersampling (or SSAA). It's used a lot nowadays mainly as a last resort, because some of these dx11 games aren't compatible with MSAA for some reason. MSAA (what until recently you could call 'normal AA') still takes a performance hit, but a much smaller one, as it doesn't render the whole scene in double res. In fact, while MSAAx2 takes a performance hit and MSAAx4 takes a bigger one, by the time you get to MSAAx8 and MSAAx16, the performance difference (and the visual quality improvements) become hard to spot. You also have post-processing AA types like FXAA or SMAA, which generally take a very tiny performance hit and are well worth turning on. And then also TXAA, which is used in very few games, but is really good because it specialises in getting rid of jaggies while in motion, which is when you tend to notice them most. It's always worth trying, though it also takes a sizeable performance hit. I should also mention that AA isn't as important in 3D as in 2D. This is because in 2D, both eyes see the same pixels in the exact same spots, so when there are jaggies, they look really sharp and apparent. But in 3D, each eye gets a slightly different image, so each detail of the picture is seen twice, usually from a slightly different perspective. These two images combine to form a slightly softened final image. It's kind of a nice side effect of 3Dvision: it comes with its own natural antialiasing properties. If that sounds like 3D gives blurred images, don't worry, it doesn't. It just makes things much more like reality. In reality, you can make out perfect, crisp detail, yet the edges of things rarely look as unnaturally sharp as they do in 2D games. 3Dvision is the same.
Games don't really have native resolutions. They're built to support lots of resolutions, to account for the different native resolutions of different screens. So when you think "native res" in NFS:MW, think the highest resolution that your screen can go to - that'll be the best-looking res (your screen will support lower resolutions too, but as well as having larger pixels, these will likely look a little muddy or blurry, since they aren't native for your screen).

Shinra358 said:I just learned that you don't really need AA at max and that the number in front of AA means the internal rez of what you're rendering the game in.
That only describes one type of of AA: supersampling (or SSAA). It's used a lot nowadays mainly as a last resort, because some of these dx11 games aren't compatible with MSAA for some reason.

MSAA (what until recently you could call 'normal AA') still takes a performance hit, but a much smaller one, as it doesn't render the whole scene in double res. In fact, while MSAAx2 takes a performance hit and MSAAx4 takes a bigger one, by the time you get to MSAAx8 and MSAAx16, the performance difference (and the visual quality improvements) become hard to spot.

You also have post-processing AA types like FXAA or SMAA, which generally take a very tiny performance hit and are well worth turning on.

And then also TXAA, which is used in very few games, but is really good because it specialises in getting rid of jaggies while in motion, which is when you tend to notice them most. It's always worth trying, though it also takes a sizeable performance hit.



I should also mention that AA isn't as important in 3D as in 2D. This is because in 2D, both eyes see the same pixels in the exact same spots, so when there are jaggies, they look really sharp and apparent. But in 3D, each eye gets a slightly different image, so each detail of the picture is seen twice, usually from a slightly different perspective. These two images combine to form a slightly softened final image. It's kind of a nice side effect of 3Dvision: it comes with its own natural antialiasing properties.

If that sounds like 3D gives blurred images, don't worry, it doesn't. It just makes things much more like reality. In reality, you can make out perfect, crisp detail, yet the edges of things rarely look as unnaturally sharp as they do in 2D games. 3Dvision is the same.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#7
Posted 11/20/2013 01:29 AM   
Actually the native res is the res that the developers mainly intended for the image to be viewed. That's why there is AA, so that if you upres, you can make it to look how it was intended to look as if you were playing it at the native res. Also, there is an automatic blur that occurs when you play a game lower than your monitor's resolution. For example, Skullgirls. Playing it on 1080p, you will see slight pixelation and even corrupted sprites on some characters. But when you play on 720p, all seems fine. If you have it, pick that wild chick on 1080p and crouch with her. Then look on her exposed shoulder. Another example, on MK9, look how pixelated the menu art gets when at 1080p compared to 720p. I actually noticed that in 3D games myself. Games with horrifying textures (like the street fighter games) look 10x better when in 3dvision. So it actually turns out to be a good then AA is taxing the scene with 3Dvision on and in turn, you actually don't really need it when 3D is on. Too bad there's no function to automatically turn AA off when in 3D :P
Actually the native res is the res that the developers mainly intended for the image to be viewed. That's why there is AA, so that if you upres, you can make it to look how it was intended to look as if you were playing it at the native res. Also, there is an automatic blur that occurs when you play a game lower than your monitor's resolution. For example, Skullgirls. Playing it on 1080p, you will see slight pixelation and even corrupted sprites on some characters. But when you play on 720p, all seems fine. If you have it, pick that wild chick on 1080p and crouch with her. Then look on her exposed shoulder. Another example, on MK9, look how pixelated the menu art gets when at 1080p compared to 720p.

I actually noticed that in 3D games myself. Games with horrifying textures (like the street fighter games) look 10x better when in 3dvision. So it actually turns out to be a good then AA is taxing the scene with 3Dvision on and in turn, you actually don't really need it when 3D is on. Too bad there's no function to automatically turn AA off when in 3D :P

Model: Clevo P570WM Laptop
GPU: GeForce GTX 980M ~8GB GDDR5
CPU: Intel Core i7-4960X CPU +4.2GHz (12 CPUs)
Memory: 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3L 1600MHz, 4x8gb
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate

#8
Posted 11/20/2013 03:02 AM   
Scroll To Top