Well, I'm using a 3D vision ready 23 inch monitor, but I'm thinking I won't be able to run it full 1080p while in 3D. If I take what I see from the charts on Tom's hardware, can I just divide the FPS in half to get my approximate FPS in 3D vision mode?
Well, I'm using a 3D vision ready 23 inch monitor, but I'm thinking I won't be able to run it full 1080p while in 3D. If I take what I see from the charts on Tom's hardware, can I just divide the FPS in half to get my approximate FPS in 3D vision mode?
[quote name='Kneppy18' date='11 April 2011 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1302580443' post='1223171']
Well, I'm using a 3D vision ready 23 inch monitor, but I'm thinking I won't be able to run it full 1080p while in 3D. If I take what I see from the charts on Tom's hardware, can I just divide the FPS in half to get my approximate FPS in 3D vision mode?
[/quote]
I'm not going to claim to be as knowledgeable as some of the other people here, but I felt like I should reply because I'm planning on doing the exact same thing (building it this Easter weekend). Now I'm taking a single 560 ti with plans to go SLI later I set myself an obligatory budget and am just trying to stick to it, but I'd like to be able to play 3D as soon as I build it.
After doing lots of research I've found the the 560 ti is perfectly acceptable for 3D gaming. I found this out after wading through all the people that only find playing at max res and max settings the only "acceptable" way. This will be my first gaming rig, I play on a 13" screen and play WoW at near max capping at 15 fps to not overheat anything. So being able to play basically any modern game at near or above PS3 quality (my benchmark cause I haven't seen "good" pc graphics) in 3D at acceptable FPS is fine and dandy with me even if i have them at "low" settings.
If your situation is anything like mine I'm sure you'll be perfectly fine playing metro 2033 etc. on low in 3D, it's not all about maxing everything all the time especially if you're doing a massive upgrade, just think when you get SLI in six months or so another big upgrade.
TLDR: 560 wont let you play all games at max in 3D, but you don't [i]have[/i] to play at max to enjoy the 3D.
[quote name='Kneppy18' date='11 April 2011 - 07:54 PM' timestamp='1302580443' post='1223171']
Well, I'm using a 3D vision ready 23 inch monitor, but I'm thinking I won't be able to run it full 1080p while in 3D. If I take what I see from the charts on Tom's hardware, can I just divide the FPS in half to get my approximate FPS in 3D vision mode?
I'm not going to claim to be as knowledgeable as some of the other people here, but I felt like I should reply because I'm planning on doing the exact same thing (building it this Easter weekend). Now I'm taking a single 560 ti with plans to go SLI later I set myself an obligatory budget and am just trying to stick to it, but I'd like to be able to play 3D as soon as I build it.
After doing lots of research I've found the the 560 ti is perfectly acceptable for 3D gaming. I found this out after wading through all the people that only find playing at max res and max settings the only "acceptable" way. This will be my first gaming rig, I play on a 13" screen and play WoW at near max capping at 15 fps to not overheat anything. So being able to play basically any modern game at near or above PS3 quality (my benchmark cause I haven't seen "good" pc graphics) in 3D at acceptable FPS is fine and dandy with me even if i have them at "low" settings.
If your situation is anything like mine I'm sure you'll be perfectly fine playing metro 2033 etc. on low in 3D, it's not all about maxing everything all the time especially if you're doing a massive upgrade, just think when you get SLI in six months or so another big upgrade.
TLDR: 560 wont let you play all games at max in 3D, but you don't have to play at max to enjoy the 3D.
Very true Mr./Ms. Carlson. I'm thinking we won't have to go to "low" settings, but if we drop the res. to 1680x1050 or even 1440x900, we should be able to play at mostly high settings. I guess I'll just see what gives me the best experience. And if we want to go maxed out, we could always turn 3D off and get great FPS on most games from what I understand.
Very true Mr./Ms. Carlson. I'm thinking we won't have to go to "low" settings, but if we drop the res. to 1680x1050 or even 1440x900, we should be able to play at mostly high settings. I guess I'll just see what gives me the best experience. And if we want to go maxed out, we could always turn 3D off and get great FPS on most games from what I understand.
If it helps, I was in a similar situation. I ended up going for the 570 instead of the 560 Ti, and I'm very glad I did. Games in 2D are incredibly smooth, but when enabling 3D you can tell that some games could still use a little more rendering power (only 30fps in some cases), so I can only imagine how bad it would be if I had selected the 560 Ti.
Also, don't make my mistake and be sure that whatever BRAND of card you get allows you to unlock voltage control. My stupid cheap PNY XLr8 GTX570 does not, and will barely clock higher than stock without issues.
If it helps, I was in a similar situation. I ended up going for the 570 instead of the 560 Ti, and I'm very glad I did. Games in 2D are incredibly smooth, but when enabling 3D you can tell that some games could still use a little more rendering power (only 30fps in some cases), so I can only imagine how bad it would be if I had selected the 560 Ti.
Also, don't make my mistake and be sure that whatever BRAND of card you get allows you to unlock voltage control. My stupid cheap PNY XLr8 GTX570 does not, and will barely clock higher than stock without issues.
I don't know what you guys are talking about...the 560 can't handle 3D games? Before I got the 560 and when 3DTV Play used to work for me, I was playing Dragon Age 2 at 1080/24 in 3D on a 768mb gtx 460. I ran it on high (couldn't tell difference between high and very high even on static images)with AA off (because in 3D there's really very little point in AA). This was on a Q9300.
Now I have a 560, i7-2600K at 4.2GHz, SSD, 8gb 1866 RAM and Dragon Age 2 was butter on the highest settings in 3D (except 8xAA...I had to limit to 4x). Now I'm playing Crysis 2 at fully maxed settings in 3D (Crysis's own 3D, because 3DTV Play works sporadically, but it looks exactly the same when it does) with very smooth framerates (don't know what they are, I just know they are 30+ because I never notice any slowdowns). This is all at 1080.
For me, the highest settings are up to the point where I can no longer notice a change if I go higher. The 560 can do that and more. One 580 is 500 bucks, 2 560s are 500 bucks and are considerably faster. 570 at 350 seems to be a rather bland in-between. Far better to get one 560 now, play everything on the highest [u]noticeable[/u] settings until you no longer can, then pick up another one for a hundred bucks a year or two from now. Then you will have paid the same price as the 570 and will have far superior performance (and consequently longevity).
I don't know what you guys are talking about...the 560 can't handle 3D games? Before I got the 560 and when 3DTV Play used to work for me, I was playing Dragon Age 2 at 1080/24 in 3D on a 768mb gtx 460. I ran it on high (couldn't tell difference between high and very high even on static images)with AA off (because in 3D there's really very little point in AA). This was on a Q9300.
Now I have a 560, i7-2600K at 4.2GHz, SSD, 8gb 1866 RAM and Dragon Age 2 was butter on the highest settings in 3D (except 8xAA...I had to limit to 4x). Now I'm playing Crysis 2 at fully maxed settings in 3D (Crysis's own 3D, because 3DTV Play works sporadically, but it looks exactly the same when it does) with very smooth framerates (don't know what they are, I just know they are 30+ because I never notice any slowdowns). This is all at 1080.
For me, the highest settings are up to the point where I can no longer notice a change if I go higher. The 560 can do that and more. One 580 is 500 bucks, 2 560s are 500 bucks and are considerably faster. 570 at 350 seems to be a rather bland in-between. Far better to get one 560 now, play everything on the highest noticeable settings until you no longer can, then pick up another one for a hundred bucks a year or two from now. Then you will have paid the same price as the 570 and will have far superior performance (and consequently longevity).
Generally speaking, 3D needs vRAM, so the more the better. If you want to run 3D smoothly in most/all games that support it, you'll either have to hunt down a GTX 560 Ti 2GB Edition, or go with something with more vRAM.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
Generally speaking, 3D needs vRAM, so the more the better. If you want to run 3D smoothly in most/all games that support it, you'll either have to hunt down a GTX 560 Ti 2GB Edition, or go with something with more vRAM.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
[quote name='Goddess84' date='15 April 2011 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1302932821' post='1225579']
Generally speaking, 3D needs vRAM, so the more the better. If you want to run 3D smoothly in most/all games that support it, you'll either have to hunt down a GTX 560 Ti 2GB Edition, or go with something with more vRAM.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
[/quote]
After reading this statement I went and looked around the web to see if other people had the same view. Over plenty of sites I found that VRAM is in no way a determining factor in 3D. Most cases it seemed to use the exact same amount of VRAM, but double the processing power. ie: VRAM will only help you in 3D if it was going to help you in 2D. If you wanna play at 2560x1600 you will need more VRAM but you can't do 3D at that res afaik. So whatever card you look at be it 1 GB to 3 GB from what I've read the only difference in 3D will be a half in FPS. if the game uses 800 mb of RAM in 2D the 2.2 GB is doing nothing at all in 3D either. Also AA isn't as noticeable in 3D so you can turn that down for memory savings.
[quote name='Goddess84' date='15 April 2011 - 09:47 PM' timestamp='1302932821' post='1225579']
Generally speaking, 3D needs vRAM, so the more the better. If you want to run 3D smoothly in most/all games that support it, you'll either have to hunt down a GTX 560 Ti 2GB Edition, or go with something with more vRAM.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
After reading this statement I went and looked around the web to see if other people had the same view. Over plenty of sites I found that VRAM is in no way a determining factor in 3D. Most cases it seemed to use the exact same amount of VRAM, but double the processing power. ie: VRAM will only help you in 3D if it was going to help you in 2D. If you wanna play at 2560x1600 you will need more VRAM but you can't do 3D at that res afaik. So whatever card you look at be it 1 GB to 3 GB from what I've read the only difference in 3D will be a half in FPS. if the game uses 800 mb of RAM in 2D the 2.2 GB is doing nothing at all in 3D either. Also AA isn't as noticeable in 3D so you can turn that down for memory savings.
Well, I'm using a 3D vision ready 23 inch monitor, but I'm thinking I won't be able to run it full 1080p while in 3D. If I take what I see from the charts on Tom's hardware, can I just divide the FPS in half to get my approximate FPS in 3D vision mode?
[/quote]
I'm not going to claim to be as knowledgeable as some of the other people here, but I felt like I should reply because I'm planning on doing the exact same thing (building it this Easter weekend). Now I'm taking a single 560 ti with plans to go SLI later I set myself an obligatory budget and am just trying to stick to it, but I'd like to be able to play 3D as soon as I build it.
After doing lots of research I've found the the 560 ti is perfectly acceptable for 3D gaming. I found this out after wading through all the people that only find playing at max res and max settings the only "acceptable" way. This will be my first gaming rig, I play on a 13" screen and play WoW at near max capping at 15 fps to not overheat anything. So being able to play basically any modern game at near or above PS3 quality (my benchmark cause I haven't seen "good" pc graphics) in 3D at acceptable FPS is fine and dandy with me even if i have them at "low" settings.
If your situation is anything like mine I'm sure you'll be perfectly fine playing metro 2033 etc. on low in 3D, it's not all about maxing everything all the time especially if you're doing a massive upgrade, just think when you get SLI in six months or so another big upgrade.
TLDR: 560 wont let you play all games at max in 3D, but you don't [i]have[/i] to play at max to enjoy the 3D.
Well, I'm using a 3D vision ready 23 inch monitor, but I'm thinking I won't be able to run it full 1080p while in 3D. If I take what I see from the charts on Tom's hardware, can I just divide the FPS in half to get my approximate FPS in 3D vision mode?
I'm not going to claim to be as knowledgeable as some of the other people here, but I felt like I should reply because I'm planning on doing the exact same thing (building it this Easter weekend). Now I'm taking a single 560 ti with plans to go SLI later I set myself an obligatory budget and am just trying to stick to it, but I'd like to be able to play 3D as soon as I build it.
After doing lots of research I've found the the 560 ti is perfectly acceptable for 3D gaming. I found this out after wading through all the people that only find playing at max res and max settings the only "acceptable" way. This will be my first gaming rig, I play on a 13" screen and play WoW at near max capping at 15 fps to not overheat anything. So being able to play basically any modern game at near or above PS3 quality (my benchmark cause I haven't seen "good" pc graphics) in 3D at acceptable FPS is fine and dandy with me even if i have them at "low" settings.
If your situation is anything like mine I'm sure you'll be perfectly fine playing metro 2033 etc. on low in 3D, it's not all about maxing everything all the time especially if you're doing a massive upgrade, just think when you get SLI in six months or so another big upgrade.
TLDR: 560 wont let you play all games at max in 3D, but you don't have to play at max to enjoy the 3D.
Also, don't make my mistake and be sure that whatever BRAND of card you get allows you to unlock voltage control. My stupid cheap PNY XLr8 GTX570 does not, and will barely clock higher than stock without issues.
Also, don't make my mistake and be sure that whatever BRAND of card you get allows you to unlock voltage control. My stupid cheap PNY XLr8 GTX570 does not, and will barely clock higher than stock without issues.
i7-3770k
GTX680
16GB DDR3-2400
Now I have a 560, i7-2600K at 4.2GHz, SSD, 8gb 1866 RAM and Dragon Age 2 was butter on the highest settings in 3D (except 8xAA...I had to limit to 4x). Now I'm playing Crysis 2 at fully maxed settings in 3D (Crysis's own 3D, because 3DTV Play works sporadically, but it looks exactly the same when it does) with very smooth framerates (don't know what they are, I just know they are 30+ because I never notice any slowdowns). This is all at 1080.
For me, the highest settings are up to the point where I can no longer notice a change if I go higher. The 560 can do that and more. One 580 is 500 bucks, 2 560s are 500 bucks and are considerably faster. 570 at 350 seems to be a rather bland in-between. Far better to get one 560 now, play everything on the highest [u]noticeable[/u] settings until you no longer can, then pick up another one for a hundred bucks a year or two from now. Then you will have paid the same price as the 570 and will have far superior performance (and consequently longevity).
Now I have a 560, i7-2600K at 4.2GHz, SSD, 8gb 1866 RAM and Dragon Age 2 was butter on the highest settings in 3D (except 8xAA...I had to limit to 4x). Now I'm playing Crysis 2 at fully maxed settings in 3D (Crysis's own 3D, because 3DTV Play works sporadically, but it looks exactly the same when it does) with very smooth framerates (don't know what they are, I just know they are 30+ because I never notice any slowdowns). This is all at 1080.
For me, the highest settings are up to the point where I can no longer notice a change if I go higher. The 560 can do that and more. One 580 is 500 bucks, 2 560s are 500 bucks and are considerably faster. 570 at 350 seems to be a rather bland in-between. Far better to get one 560 now, play everything on the highest noticeable settings until you no longer can, then pick up another one for a hundred bucks a year or two from now. Then you will have paid the same price as the 570 and will have far superior performance (and consequently longevity).
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
CPU: i7 3930k @ 4.2GHz 1.21V ~ Motherboard: Asus RoG Rampage IV Extreme
RAM: G.Skill Sniper Gaming Series (4x4GB @ 2133MHz, 9-11-10-28-2T 1.65V)
GPUs: 1x R9 280X Vapor-X (Games/F@H), 1x R9 290 Core Edition (F@H), 1x R9 290X Core Edition (F@H)
PSU: LEPA G 1600W (Hate it, don't buy it) ~ Case: Enermax Fulmo GT
SSDs/HDDs: Corsair Force3 240GB, Corsair Force3 90GB, 1x Seagate Momentus XT 750GB
OS: Windows 7 Ultimate ~ Display: Sony Bravia 52" LED LCD HDTV
Laptops: Alienware M18x (2013, GTX 560M SLi) & Alienware M14x (2014, GTX 765M)
Generally speaking, 3D needs vRAM, so the more the better. If you want to run 3D smoothly in most/all games that support it, you'll either have to hunt down a GTX 560 Ti 2GB Edition, or go with something with more vRAM.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
[/quote]
After reading this statement I went and looked around the web to see if other people had the same view. Over plenty of sites I found that VRAM is in no way a determining factor in 3D. Most cases it seemed to use the exact same amount of VRAM, but double the processing power. ie: VRAM will only help you in 3D if it was going to help you in 2D. If you wanna play at 2560x1600 you will need more VRAM but you can't do 3D at that res afaik. So whatever card you look at be it 1 GB to 3 GB from what I've read the only difference in 3D will be a half in FPS. if the game uses 800 mb of RAM in 2D the 2.2 GB is doing nothing at all in 3D either. Also AA isn't as noticeable in 3D so you can turn that down for memory savings.
Generally speaking, 3D needs vRAM, so the more the better. If you want to run 3D smoothly in most/all games that support it, you'll either have to hunt down a GTX 560 Ti 2GB Edition, or go with something with more vRAM.
As for the dude sayin' 2 560s is faster than 1 580... not necessarily, that depends on the resolution (again, vRAM plays a big factor in 3D) and quality of settings. If you aren't looking at money as an object, I'd go with a GTX 580 3GB edition, and eventually get a second for SLi.
After reading this statement I went and looked around the web to see if other people had the same view. Over plenty of sites I found that VRAM is in no way a determining factor in 3D. Most cases it seemed to use the exact same amount of VRAM, but double the processing power. ie: VRAM will only help you in 3D if it was going to help you in 2D. If you wanna play at 2560x1600 you will need more VRAM but you can't do 3D at that res afaik. So whatever card you look at be it 1 GB to 3 GB from what I've read the only difference in 3D will be a half in FPS. if the game uses 800 mb of RAM in 2D the 2.2 GB is doing nothing at all in 3D either. Also AA isn't as noticeable in 3D so you can turn that down for memory savings.