Warcraft, Left 4 Dead, and Musings Throw more hardware at the problem?
2 / 2
[quote name='ratbuddy' post='511783' date='Feb 28 2009, 10:18 AM']Play in 3d and each 'frame' now consists of a stereo pair. It's going to take a bunch more GPU horsepower to render this, of course. Like, double. There may be some slight gain by not having to have the CPU do all the setup work twice (or maybe it does?) but seeing a 50% performance drop should by no means be unexpected. Look at the pixel count per frame (normal and stereo pair frame) for 1680x1050. 1764000 pixels 2d, 3528000 for a 3d pair frame. 2560x1600 is only 4096000 pixels, so stereo at 1680x1050 is pretty close. Much more demanding than 1920x1200 (2304000 pixels) even.
If you really want to inflate the FPS count, just double what the screen is displaying for a precise number actually being rendered. The number is misleading though. If someone says they are getting 60 FPS in 3d, but they came to that number by counting each eye's frames and listing the total, the experience may be choppy since each eye is only getting 30 FPS. See?[/quote]
I am using dual 8800gts on a q8200 @ 1920x1080 24/24bit w/ all distances etc max. Wow plays with no flicker (just annoying to read text). avg 78fps in sw city (41 with 3d on)
[quote name='ratbuddy' post='511783' date='Feb 28 2009, 10:18 AM']Play in 3d and each 'frame' now consists of a stereo pair. It's going to take a bunch more GPU horsepower to render this, of course. Like, double. There may be some slight gain by not having to have the CPU do all the setup work twice (or maybe it does?) but seeing a 50% performance drop should by no means be unexpected. Look at the pixel count per frame (normal and stereo pair frame) for 1680x1050. 1764000 pixels 2d, 3528000 for a 3d pair frame. 2560x1600 is only 4096000 pixels, so stereo at 1680x1050 is pretty close. Much more demanding than 1920x1200 (2304000 pixels) even.
If you really want to inflate the FPS count, just double what the screen is displaying for a precise number actually being rendered. The number is misleading though. If someone says they are getting 60 FPS in 3d, but they came to that number by counting each eye's frames and listing the total, the experience may be choppy since each eye is only getting 30 FPS. See?
I am using dual 8800gts on a q8200 @ 1920x1080 24/24bit w/ all distances etc max. Wow plays with no flicker (just annoying to read text). avg 78fps in sw city (41 with 3d on)
[quote name='ratbuddy' post='511783' date='Feb 28 2009, 05:18 PM']Play in 3d and each 'frame' now consists of a stereo pair.[/quote]
Er, no. Play in 3d and each frame consists of...a frame. The 120Hz monitor in the nVidia package can display 120 frames per second, with 60 being seen by the left eye and 60 by the right when using the shutterglasses. If your graphics card is fast enough to render the game at that rate in both 2D and 3D, then in 2D you'll see a total of 120fps and your in-game frame rate counter will read 120. Similarly in 3D you'll see 120fps (60 per eye) and your in-game frame rate counter will still read 120. In both cases exactly the same number of frames and pixels will have been rendered (with v-sync on).
Your calculations would be correct for a head mounted display where each eye has a separate screen but in the nVidia implementation this isn't the case. Now clearly there is [i]some[/i] extra overhead running in 3D (the driver has to move the position of the camera slightly before rendering each frame) but if that tiny extra calculation results in a framerate drop even close to 50% then something is badly wrong with the 3D drivers.
Cheers,
DD
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure who's right. You think the 3d driver generates two frames (one for each eye) for each count of the in-game fps counter, I think it just generates one frame (but alternates the eye each time). I suppose the way to check would be to look at frame rates in stereo when v-sync is on with a 120Hz monitor. If they ever go above 60 then I'm right, whereas if they never do then you are.
[quote name='ratbuddy' post='511783' date='Feb 28 2009, 05:18 PM']Play in 3d and each 'frame' now consists of a stereo pair.
Er, no. Play in 3d and each frame consists of...a frame. The 120Hz monitor in the nVidia package can display 120 frames per second, with 60 being seen by the left eye and 60 by the right when using the shutterglasses. If your graphics card is fast enough to render the game at that rate in both 2D and 3D, then in 2D you'll see a total of 120fps and your in-game frame rate counter will read 120. Similarly in 3D you'll see 120fps (60 per eye) and your in-game frame rate counter will still read 120. In both cases exactly the same number of frames and pixels will have been rendered (with v-sync on).
Your calculations would be correct for a head mounted display where each eye has a separate screen but in the nVidia implementation this isn't the case. Now clearly there is some extra overhead running in 3D (the driver has to move the position of the camera slightly before rendering each frame) but if that tiny extra calculation results in a framerate drop even close to 50% then something is badly wrong with the 3D drivers.
Cheers,
DD
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure who's right. You think the 3d driver generates two frames (one for each eye) for each count of the in-game fps counter, I think it just generates one frame (but alternates the eye each time). I suppose the way to check would be to look at frame rates in stereo when v-sync is on with a 120Hz monitor. If they ever go above 60 then I'm right, whereas if they never do then you are.
I don't think they ever go above 60 in stereo mode. I went into a small room to get my frames "capped out", and I was at 120 in 2D mode, 60 in 3D mode. That can't just be a coincidence.
I don't think they ever go above 60 in stereo mode. I went into a small room to get my frames "capped out", and I was at 120 in 2D mode, 60 in 3D mode. That can't just be a coincidence.
[quote name='rickhtoo' post='511572' date='Feb 27 2009, 09:54 PM']That I can believe, but when you start talking about WoW it's a different story. If there was not such a thing as an addon, then we would all have better results. Normally there would not be a lot of difference in fps between 2D and 3D, but when you factor in the addons, it really causes issues. Most games they don't have to worry about that factor, but it's WoW that's giving them fits. They simply can't deal with the variety of addons out there as everyone has different tastes in them. Hopefully they can get it better but I doubt we will ever see the kind of performance we would really like to. At least not in WoW..
Rick[/quote]
I have to say that while current experience certainly proves you right, it would seem that "common sense" would be the opposite. Add ons do basically two things: make calculations and display (2D) elements. I don't recall seeing an addon (3rd party) that did anything in "3D".
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
[quote name='rickhtoo' post='511572' date='Feb 27 2009, 09:54 PM']That I can believe, but when you start talking about WoW it's a different story. If there was not such a thing as an addon, then we would all have better results. Normally there would not be a lot of difference in fps between 2D and 3D, but when you factor in the addons, it really causes issues. Most games they don't have to worry about that factor, but it's WoW that's giving them fits. They simply can't deal with the variety of addons out there as everyone has different tastes in them. Hopefully they can get it better but I doubt we will ever see the kind of performance we would really like to. At least not in WoW..
Rick
I have to say that while current experience certainly proves you right, it would seem that "common sense" would be the opposite. Add ons do basically two things: make calculations and display (2D) elements. I don't recall seeing an addon (3rd party) that did anything in "3D".
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
[quote name='Metyx' post='511978' date='Mar 1 2009, 02:32 AM']I went into a small room to get my frames "capped out", and I was at 120 in 2D mode, 60 in 3D mode. That can't just be a coincidence.[/quote]
Ah well, I guess that settles it then :). Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
DD
[quote name='Metyx' post='511978' date='Mar 1 2009, 02:32 AM']I went into a small room to get my frames "capped out", and I was at 120 in 2D mode, 60 in 3D mode. That can't just be a coincidence.
Ah well, I guess that settles it then :). Apologies for the confusion.
If it didn't render 2 frames for every 'fps counter frame' then when frames were below 120 FPS, 1 eye's display would be lagging behind the other's and the effect would be completely broken. They need to render as pairs or all is lost :)
If it didn't render 2 frames for every 'fps counter frame' then when frames were below 120 FPS, 1 eye's display would be lagging behind the other's and the effect would be completely broken. They need to render as pairs or all is lost :)
[quote name='Metyx' post='511979' date='Feb 28 2009, 09:35 PM']I have to say that while current experience certainly proves you right, it would seem that "common sense" would be the opposite. Add ons do basically two things: make calculations and display (2D) elements. I don't recall seeing an addon (3rd party) that did anything in "3D".
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
Just a guess.[/quote]
Yes, well in most addons your would think that is the case. However, consider xperl for instance. It adds a little 'video' picture to the player window and is definitely a 3D object. At least it is put in double image mode when 3D is turned on, though it's not converged properly. Outfitter also is affected by 3D mode, and the 3rd popout window is also double imaged. All these factors make WoW a whole new animal when it comes to 3D. The HUD is necessary but troublesome for displaying 3D modes. When you factor in 'popout' one of the coolest 3D features, the HUD totally screws up the effect.. Too bad we can't play the game without the HUD...
[quote name='Metyx' post='511979' date='Feb 28 2009, 09:35 PM']I have to say that while current experience certainly proves you right, it would seem that "common sense" would be the opposite. Add ons do basically two things: make calculations and display (2D) elements. I don't recall seeing an addon (3rd party) that did anything in "3D".
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
Just a guess.
Yes, well in most addons your would think that is the case. However, consider xperl for instance. It adds a little 'video' picture to the player window and is definitely a 3D object. At least it is put in double image mode when 3D is turned on, though it's not converged properly. Outfitter also is affected by 3D mode, and the 3rd popout window is also double imaged. All these factors make WoW a whole new animal when it comes to 3D. The HUD is necessary but troublesome for displaying 3D modes. When you factor in 'popout' one of the coolest 3D features, the HUD totally screws up the effect.. Too bad we can't play the game without the HUD...
If you really want to inflate the FPS count, just double what the screen is displaying for a precise number actually being rendered. The number is misleading though. If someone says they are getting 60 FPS in 3d, but they came to that number by counting each eye's frames and listing the total, the experience may be choppy since each eye is only getting 30 FPS. See?[/quote]
I am using dual 8800gts on a q8200 @ 1920x1080 24/24bit w/ all distances etc max. Wow plays with no flicker (just annoying to read text). avg 78fps in sw city (41 with 3d on)
If you really want to inflate the FPS count, just double what the screen is displaying for a precise number actually being rendered. The number is misleading though. If someone says they are getting 60 FPS in 3d, but they came to that number by counting each eye's frames and listing the total, the experience may be choppy since each eye is only getting 30 FPS. See?
I am using dual 8800gts on a q8200 @ 1920x1080 24/24bit w/ all distances etc max. Wow plays with no flicker (just annoying to read text). avg 78fps in sw city (41 with 3d on)
Er, no. Play in 3d and each frame consists of...a frame. The 120Hz monitor in the nVidia package can display 120 frames per second, with 60 being seen by the left eye and 60 by the right when using the shutterglasses. If your graphics card is fast enough to render the game at that rate in both 2D and 3D, then in 2D you'll see a total of 120fps and your in-game frame rate counter will read 120. Similarly in 3D you'll see 120fps (60 per eye) and your in-game frame rate counter will still read 120. In both cases exactly the same number of frames and pixels will have been rendered (with v-sync on).
Your calculations would be correct for a head mounted display where each eye has a separate screen but in the nVidia implementation this isn't the case. Now clearly there is [i]some[/i] extra overhead running in 3D (the driver has to move the position of the camera slightly before rendering each frame) but if that tiny extra calculation results in a framerate drop even close to 50% then something is badly wrong with the 3D drivers.
Cheers,
DD
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure who's right. You think the 3d driver generates two frames (one for each eye) for each count of the in-game fps counter, I think it just generates one frame (but alternates the eye each time). I suppose the way to check would be to look at frame rates in stereo when v-sync is on with a 120Hz monitor. If they ever go above 60 then I'm right, whereas if they never do then you are.
Er, no. Play in 3d and each frame consists of...a frame. The 120Hz monitor in the nVidia package can display 120 frames per second, with 60 being seen by the left eye and 60 by the right when using the shutterglasses. If your graphics card is fast enough to render the game at that rate in both 2D and 3D, then in 2D you'll see a total of 120fps and your in-game frame rate counter will read 120. Similarly in 3D you'll see 120fps (60 per eye) and your in-game frame rate counter will still read 120. In both cases exactly the same number of frames and pixels will have been rendered (with v-sync on).
Your calculations would be correct for a head mounted display where each eye has a separate screen but in the nVidia implementation this isn't the case. Now clearly there is some extra overhead running in 3D (the driver has to move the position of the camera slightly before rendering each frame) but if that tiny extra calculation results in a framerate drop even close to 50% then something is badly wrong with the 3D drivers.
Cheers,
DD
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure who's right. You think the 3d driver generates two frames (one for each eye) for each count of the in-game fps counter, I think it just generates one frame (but alternates the eye each time). I suppose the way to check would be to look at frame rates in stereo when v-sync is on with a 120Hz monitor. If they ever go above 60 then I'm right, whereas if they never do then you are.
Rick[/quote]
I have to say that while current experience certainly proves you right, it would seem that "common sense" would be the opposite. Add ons do basically two things: make calculations and display (2D) elements. I don't recall seeing an addon (3rd party) that did anything in "3D".
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
Just a guess.
Rick
I have to say that while current experience certainly proves you right, it would seem that "common sense" would be the opposite. Add ons do basically two things: make calculations and display (2D) elements. I don't recall seeing an addon (3rd party) that did anything in "3D".
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
Just a guess.
Ah well, I guess that settles it then :). Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
DD
Ah well, I guess that settles it then :). Apologies for the confusion.
Cheers,
DD
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
Just a guess.[/quote]
Yes, well in most addons your would think that is the case. However, consider xperl for instance. It adds a little 'video' picture to the player window and is definitely a 3D object. At least it is put in double image mode when 3D is turned on, though it's not converged properly. Outfitter also is affected by 3D mode, and the 3rd popout window is also double imaged. All these factors make WoW a whole new animal when it comes to 3D. The HUD is necessary but troublesome for displaying 3D modes. When you factor in 'popout' one of the coolest 3D features, the HUD totally screws up the effect.. Too bad we can't play the game without the HUD...
Rick
Why would your 3D frame rate, heavily GPU intensive, suffer at all from 2D addons with some "background" CPU calculations? It just seems weird that we get any impact at all.
I'm guessing they will find a bug someday and the frames will snap back to normal with or without addons (or 1,000 addons for that matter).
Just a guess.
Yes, well in most addons your would think that is the case. However, consider xperl for instance. It adds a little 'video' picture to the player window and is definitely a 3D object. At least it is put in double image mode when 3D is turned on, though it's not converged properly. Outfitter also is affected by 3D mode, and the 3rd popout window is also double imaged. All these factors make WoW a whole new animal when it comes to 3D. The HUD is necessary but troublesome for displaying 3D modes. When you factor in 'popout' one of the coolest 3D features, the HUD totally screws up the effect.. Too bad we can't play the game without the HUD...
Rick
So your making the CPU do double the work for 3D. And some add-ons even slow it down more.
You noticed this your self when you question why L4D runs smooth as butter..
Hope this free's your brain up some...
So your making the CPU do double the work for 3D. And some add-ons even slow it down more.
You noticed this your self when you question why L4D runs smooth as butter..
Hope this free's your brain up some...