passive vs active display FPS benchmarks? asking for comparison benchmarks on passive vs active disp
Now that 3D vision officially supports interleaved mode on passive models, like the Acer HR274H (and unofficially on all passive 3DTVs), I wonder whether the reduced vertical resolution helps the NVidia drivers to achieve a higher framerate. With 120Hz active screens, the driver has to produce a full 1920x1080 screen at least 60 times a second for both eyes. With the passive approach, only 1920x540 sized frames can be displayed for each eye, so there is no reason to render in higher vertical resolution. The actual number of pixels to produce is not higher than with a normal 2D display.

The question is whether the driver exploits this, or (stupidly) it renders both full frames, just to throw away half of them. Depending on information share between the left and the right eye rendering pipeline, the FPS is not necessarily changing linearly. So even if they do render half size, it is an interesting question how the FPS is changing. This may vary by the video cards as well.

To test this, one should measure FPS with the same PC with an active 120Hz display, then with a passive display, both using 3D Vision. Anybody owning both a passive and an active 1920x1080 display can do this. However, I cannot find anything on it over the net. Ever heard about such a test, did such a test, or could do it for me, please?
Now that 3D vision officially supports interleaved mode on passive models, like the Acer HR274H (and unofficially on all passive 3DTVs), I wonder whether the reduced vertical resolution helps the NVidia drivers to achieve a higher framerate. With 120Hz active screens, the driver has to produce a full 1920x1080 screen at least 60 times a second for both eyes. With the passive approach, only 1920x540 sized frames can be displayed for each eye, so there is no reason to render in higher vertical resolution. The actual number of pixels to produce is not higher than with a normal 2D display.



The question is whether the driver exploits this, or (stupidly) it renders both full frames, just to throw away half of them. Depending on information share between the left and the right eye rendering pipeline, the FPS is not necessarily changing linearly. So even if they do render half size, it is an interesting question how the FPS is changing. This may vary by the video cards as well.



To test this, one should measure FPS with the same PC with an active 120Hz display, then with a passive display, both using 3D Vision. Anybody owning both a passive and an active 1920x1080 display can do this. However, I cannot find anything on it over the net. Ever heard about such a test, did such a test, or could do it for me, please?

#1
Posted 04/29/2012 02:23 PM   
1920x540 is a different aspect ratio so games would be distorted.

also, rendering a game in 1080p and resampling it to 1920x540 greatly reduces aliasing and gives much better image quality.
1920x540 is a different aspect ratio so games would be distorted.



also, rendering a game in 1080p and resampling it to 1920x540 greatly reduces aliasing and gives much better image quality.

NVIDIA TITAN X (Pascal), Intel Core i7-6900K, Win 10 Pro,
ASUS ROG Rampage V Edition 10, G.Skill RipJaws V 4x 8GB DDR4-3200 CL14-14-14-34,
ASUS ROG Swift PG258Q, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q, Acer Predator XB280HK, BenQ W710ST

#2
Posted 04/29/2012 02:52 PM   
The drivers can and do align aspect ratio to the display's physical resolution. This is not a technical problem which prohibits smaller frame sizes.

Your other remark concerns an entirely different question what I asked. I agree that oversampling helps with image quality indeed, but this is true for any resolution and any form of display. Still, it is rarely used, because it is a huge waste of computational power. It is not by chance that we have a zillion FSAA methods invented in the past years, although the cards could just render in, say, 2x or 4x the size, then rescale.
The drivers can and do align aspect ratio to the display's physical resolution. This is not a technical problem which prohibits smaller frame sizes.



Your other remark concerns an entirely different question what I asked. I agree that oversampling helps with image quality indeed, but this is true for any resolution and any form of display. Still, it is rarely used, because it is a huge waste of computational power. It is not by chance that we have a zillion FSAA methods invented in the past years, although the cards could just render in, say, 2x or 4x the size, then rescale.

#3
Posted 04/29/2012 07:26 PM   
I have a Zalman passive monitor (1680x1050) and a 120Hz Asus (1080P). Both are supported by Nvidia. I have not noticed much of a performance difference between the two monitors. I have not done heavy-duty benchmarks, but they seem similar. My theory is that the drivers just render the full resolution views and then discard half of the pixels. Or in the case of the iz3d and DDD drivers, they use the extra pixels to do a sort of interleaved AA that makes the image look less blocky.
I have a Zalman passive monitor (1680x1050) and a 120Hz Asus (1080P). Both are supported by Nvidia. I have not noticed much of a performance difference between the two monitors. I have not done heavy-duty benchmarks, but they seem similar. My theory is that the drivers just render the full resolution views and then discard half of the pixels. Or in the case of the iz3d and DDD drivers, they use the extra pixels to do a sort of interleaved AA that makes the image look less blocky.
#4
Posted 04/29/2012 07:56 PM   
[quote name='cybereality' date='29 April 2012 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1335729417' post='1402369']
I have not noticed much of a performance difference between the two monitors.
[/quote]

That's quite disappointing. Thank you for sharing.
[quote name='cybereality' date='29 April 2012 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1335729417' post='1402369']

I have not noticed much of a performance difference between the two monitors.





That's quite disappointing. Thank you for sharing.

#5
Posted 04/29/2012 09:46 PM   
Scroll To Top