Lower FPS with 3d Vision Enabled FPS drops by about 50% when enabled
1 / 2
When 3d vision is enabled, I experience a significant drop in my FPS. Needless to say, this really impacts some games. Is this normal? Is there any way to mitigate some of the FPS loss? Some people claim to not suffer framerate issues at all, but given that I'm losing upwards of half my FPS with 3d vision enabled, something isn't right.
Any advice would be much appreciated. As far as I've been able to tell, 3d vision seems to be working normally.
I'm using a 480 card with 12 GB of RAM and an Intel i7 3GHZ processor on an ASUS Sabertooth X58 motherboard if any of that information helps. Honestly, I feel like I should be able to blast my way through almost any game out there without much difficulty.
When 3d vision is enabled, I experience a significant drop in my FPS. Needless to say, this really impacts some games. Is this normal? Is there any way to mitigate some of the FPS loss? Some people claim to not suffer framerate issues at all, but given that I'm losing upwards of half my FPS with 3d vision enabled, something isn't right.
Any advice would be much appreciated. As far as I've been able to tell, 3d vision seems to be working normally.
I'm using a 480 card with 12 GB of RAM and an Intel i7 3GHZ processor on an ASUS Sabertooth X58 motherboard if any of that information helps. Honestly, I feel like I should be able to blast my way through almost any game out there without much difficulty.
Yep it's normal, it's called stereoscopic as in 2 screens instead of 1. Take off your glasses and you can see both.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
[quote name='Hurmpie' date='02 July 2011 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1309569235' post='1259034']
Yep it's normal, it's called stereoscopic as in 2 screens instead of 1. Take off your glasses and you can see both.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
[/quote]
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
[quote name='Hurmpie' date='02 July 2011 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1309569235' post='1259034']
Yep it's normal, it's called stereoscopic as in 2 screens instead of 1. Take off your glasses and you can see both.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
[quote name='Suntory_Times' date='01 July 2011 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1309570209' post='1259037']
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
[/quote]
When I bought the 480 last October, it was the best GPU out there as the 500 series had not been released, but to my knowledge, 3D Vision is being advertised on cards much older than the 400 series. If I need something more powerful, what you're telling me is that I need a top of the line graphics card, which is certainly not in my budget right now. I splurged as it was to buy the monitor and the 3D Vision equipment (which seemed really overpriced since it's only feature is a 120hz refresh rate and is otherwise a very basic monitor).
It's really unfortunate that I'll need something more powerful than a 480 card to get a decent FPS in 3D Vision for games that are in some cases several years old. It sounds like I should probably return the 3D vision kit and monitor, since it's going to be at least six months to a year before I can upgrade my computer equipment, and that money would have come close to buying me a 590 card, which would have brought me a lot more gaming pleasure than what I've experienced with 3D vision so far.
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
[quote name='Suntory_Times' date='01 July 2011 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1309570209' post='1259037']
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
When I bought the 480 last October, it was the best GPU out there as the 500 series had not been released, but to my knowledge, 3D Vision is being advertised on cards much older than the 400 series. If I need something more powerful, what you're telling me is that I need a top of the line graphics card, which is certainly not in my budget right now. I splurged as it was to buy the monitor and the 3D Vision equipment (which seemed really overpriced since it's only feature is a 120hz refresh rate and is otherwise a very basic monitor).
It's really unfortunate that I'll need something more powerful than a 480 card to get a decent FPS in 3D Vision for games that are in some cases several years old. It sounds like I should probably return the 3D vision kit and monitor, since it's going to be at least six months to a year before I can upgrade my computer equipment, and that money would have come close to buying me a 590 card, which would have brought me a lot more gaming pleasure than what I've experienced with 3D vision so far.
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
[quote name='Connacht' date='02 July 2011 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1309623150' post='1259242']
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
[/quote]
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
[quote name='Connacht' date='02 July 2011 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1309623150' post='1259242']
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
Intel I7 3820 3.8 Ghz,MSI MS7760 Motherboard, 6GB )2x MSI GTX670 (SLI),OCZ Vertex 230Gb SSD,OCZ Agility 120Gb SSD, Asus 3D VG278HR ,Optoma HD67 3D DLP Beamer with 95inch 2.5 gain screen.
Connacht, you could get another 48 and run in SLI and that would be enough to run nearly all games in 69fps maxed out. Sell 6gig of your ram if money is an issue as I don't know of any game that utilises all of that.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x[u]1080[/u] running in 3d.
Connacht, you could get another 48 and run in SLI and that would be enough to run nearly all games in 69fps maxed out. Sell 6gig of your ram if money is an issue as I don't know of any game that utilises all of that.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x1080 running in 3d.
[quote name='Ferry' date='02 July 2011 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1309626149' post='1259269']
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
[/quote]
The information on the internet, like most information on the internet, is inconsistent on this subject. Some people claim they get no FPS drop whatsoever and that it must be a problem with the users' hardware or improperly installed drivers. In fact, that's why I came here to post in the first place, because the information was inconsistent. I would never have known to ask the question before I experienced the issue, and I did not see this issue mentioned in reviews of 3D vision nor in the FAQ on these forums.
30 FPS works on some games, but not those which are graphically intensive.
For me, the 3D isn't worth lowering my graphics settings. The games are already in 3D (albeit projected on a 2D plane), the stereoscopic 3D is just, in my experience, a minor improvement on my current gaming configuration. Perhaps if I had surround sound and wasn't sharing a well-lit office with my wife, 3D vision would function better. But that's the my situation, at least at the present time. Perhaps things will be different when we move in a couple of months, but it seems rather extreme to build a gaming environment around stereoscopic 3D.
[quote name='Ferry' date='02 July 2011 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1309626149' post='1259269']
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
The information on the internet, like most information on the internet, is inconsistent on this subject. Some people claim they get no FPS drop whatsoever and that it must be a problem with the users' hardware or improperly installed drivers. In fact, that's why I came here to post in the first place, because the information was inconsistent. I would never have known to ask the question before I experienced the issue, and I did not see this issue mentioned in reviews of 3D vision nor in the FAQ on these forums.
30 FPS works on some games, but not those which are graphically intensive.
For me, the 3D isn't worth lowering my graphics settings. The games are already in 3D (albeit projected on a 2D plane), the stereoscopic 3D is just, in my experience, a minor improvement on my current gaming configuration. Perhaps if I had surround sound and wasn't sharing a well-lit office with my wife, 3D vision would function better. But that's the my situation, at least at the present time. Perhaps things will be different when we move in a couple of months, but it seems rather extreme to build a gaming environment around stereoscopic 3D.
[quote name='Richie72' date='02 July 2011 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1309631665' post='1259306']
Connacht, you could get another 48 and run in SLI and that would be enough to run nearly all games in 69fps maxed out. Sell 6gig of your ram if money is an issue as I don't know of any game that utilises all of that.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x[u]1920[/u] running in 3d.
[/quote]
Unfortunately SLI isn't an option for me. While I was building my computer, I discovered that the manufacturer of my motherboard had foolishly placed the only PCI express slot that my sound card was designed to use in-between the two PCI express slots designed to receive my graphics card(s). This means that in order for me to use SLI, I would have to remove my sound card. Next time I build a computer I'll know how to recognize poor design choices like this (after all, it's a learning experience) but for now, I'm stuck with what I have. Add to it that another 480 card really isn't in my budget right now. It's true that I have more RAM than I really need, but the extra is not worth $300 plus dollars. RAM is, fortunately I think, quite cheap these days for the most part.
[quote name='Richie72' date='02 July 2011 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1309631665' post='1259306']
Connacht, you could get another 48 and run in SLI and that would be enough to run nearly all games in 69fps maxed out. Sell 6gig of your ram if money is an issue as I don't know of any game that utilises all of that.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x1920 running in 3d.
Unfortunately SLI isn't an option for me. While I was building my computer, I discovered that the manufacturer of my motherboard had foolishly placed the only PCI express slot that my sound card was designed to use in-between the two PCI express slots designed to receive my graphics card(s). This means that in order for me to use SLI, I would have to remove my sound card. Next time I build a computer I'll know how to recognize poor design choices like this (after all, it's a learning experience) but for now, I'm stuck with what I have. Add to it that another 480 card really isn't in my budget right now. It's true that I have more RAM than I really need, but the extra is not worth $300 plus dollars. RAM is, fortunately I think, quite cheap these days for the most part.
yep, fps drop is unavoidable with 3D Vision activated. For example, I am playing Avatar The Game in 3D with a single GeForce 460 on ViewSonic 22" LCD and of course fps are always near 20-25 fps only, but in fact I have lowered many settings ( no AA, only DirectX 9, low postprocessing effects and so on ) and 3D effects are still very very amazing for good performances.
yep, fps drop is unavoidable with 3D Vision activated. For example, I am playing Avatar The Game in 3D with a single GeForce 460 on ViewSonic 22" LCD and of course fps are always near 20-25 fps only, but in fact I have lowered many settings ( no AA, only DirectX 9, low postprocessing effects and so on ) and 3D effects are still very very amazing for good performances.
it is OK
any way if you are playing on 3d vision or TriDef 3D you will get decreasing on FPS
rather than playing a game force the 3D play like crysis 2 .. it will stay the same ^_^
so it is a game developers issue now
If you think 3D Vision is minor improvement, sell your kit and monitor and go back to happy 2D gaming.
To me 3D Vision was the biggest change in game industry since 16 bits consoles like Super Nes and Mega Drive reached the market in the 90's.
I still think that folks that don't find 3D Vision that attractive, might have some vision disavantage that causes some eye strain, and they dont really see the crispy perfect graphics that we 3D Vision loyal users can see. Hopefully I have good eyes and don't have any problems watching 3D movies and playing 3D games.
I see people with 16gb ram rigs, for what??? Unless you're producing a Spielberg movie and doing movie editing or something like that.
3D Vision rocks, it's not a minor improvement, it complete changes the gaming immersion experience....
I think sound comes in second place compared to 3D Vision, I just use my Asus board built-in sound card and I have a Bose Companion 2 sound system that really kicks ass, no need for a 5.1 surround system.
It's all a matter of taste, but using the computer onboard sound is not bad at all if you have a good Bose, Logitech, Harmon-kardon, and other good sound systems.
If you think 3D Vision is minor improvement, sell your kit and monitor and go back to happy 2D gaming.
To me 3D Vision was the biggest change in game industry since 16 bits consoles like Super Nes and Mega Drive reached the market in the 90's.
I still think that folks that don't find 3D Vision that attractive, might have some vision disavantage that causes some eye strain, and they dont really see the crispy perfect graphics that we 3D Vision loyal users can see. Hopefully I have good eyes and don't have any problems watching 3D movies and playing 3D games.
I see people with 16gb ram rigs, for what??? Unless you're producing a Spielberg movie and doing movie editing or something like that.
3D Vision rocks, it's not a minor improvement, it complete changes the gaming immersion experience....
I think sound comes in second place compared to 3D Vision, I just use my Asus board built-in sound card and I have a Bose Companion 2 sound system that really kicks ass, no need for a 5.1 surround system.
It's all a matter of taste, but using the computer onboard sound is not bad at all if you have a good Bose, Logitech, Harmon-kardon, and other good sound systems.
3D Vision and SLI is a must, that's for sure.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
I will give you a small example as how I started understanding 3D after reading about it... So let's say, that with [b]2-way SLI GTX 770s[/b] you get [b]140FPS[/b] at [b]1080p[/b] on max settings, so:
[center]140 FPS - 2D @ 1080p
|
70 FPS - 3D @ 1080p
/ \
35 FPS + 35 FPS - per eye[/center]
You can get maximum of 60FPS per eye, meaning 120FPS Total on 3D and 240FPS on normal 2D... It is quite a huge challenge to get around those numbers...
I have been canceling builds for 2 years, waiting for a GPU that can give a good performance for 3D, but even now, with the new Maxwell, I don't think I will get what's considered "perfect stereoscopic 3D" at 60FPS/eye.
I will anyways SLI those Maxwell cards, Watercool them and OC them, but that would be what? A 10FPS jump from OCing? The next big jump in performance you can expect next year with DX12 and W9. However I am upgrading probably this year since Oculus Rift is on it's way! I know I can get between the recommended FPS which are 120 :)
If you know, the new Asus Swift PG278Q, from all looks would be 3D compatible, so if you get the Nvidia 3D kit, you can play games at 3D on 1440p resolution...but I am afraid that it would be a big challenge if you don't hit at least 120FPS. Remember that 3D does not work with G-Sync! Get below 60 on 3D and you gonna feel sick to play that game...:D If it comes to the worst, I might even ones again cancel my build this year too...it hurts, but it would hurt even more if I fry my GPUs...If SLI would not help, then what will?
Merciless 3D gaming...
I will give you a small example as how I started understanding 3D after reading about it... So let's say, that with 2-way SLI GTX 770s you get 140FPS at 1080p on max settings, so:
You can get maximum of 60FPS per eye, meaning 120FPS Total on 3D and 240FPS on normal 2D... It is quite a huge challenge to get around those numbers...
I have been canceling builds for 2 years, waiting for a GPU that can give a good performance for 3D, but even now, with the new Maxwell, I don't think I will get what's considered "perfect stereoscopic 3D" at 60FPS/eye.
I will anyways SLI those Maxwell cards, Watercool them and OC them, but that would be what? A 10FPS jump from OCing? The next big jump in performance you can expect next year with DX12 and W9. However I am upgrading probably this year since Oculus Rift is on it's way! I know I can get between the recommended FPS which are 120 :)
If you know, the new Asus Swift PG278Q, from all looks would be 3D compatible, so if you get the Nvidia 3D kit, you can play games at 3D on 1440p resolution...but I am afraid that it would be a big challenge if you don't hit at least 120FPS. Remember that 3D does not work with G-Sync! Get below 60 on 3D and you gonna feel sick to play that game...:D If it comes to the worst, I might even ones again cancel my build this year too...it hurts, but it would hurt even more if I fry my GPUs...If SLI would not help, then what will?
[quote="WhiteSkyMage"]I will give you a small example as how I started understanding 3D after reading about it... So let's say, that with [b]2-way SLI GTX 770s[/b] you get [b]140FPS[/b] at [b]1080p[/b] on max settings, so:
[center]140 FPS - 2D @ 1080p
|
70 FPS - 3D @ 1080p
/ \
35 FPS + 35 FPS - per eye[/center]
[/quote]
FALSE!!!! 140fps in 2D = MAX 120fps in 3D (NO MATTER what you get in 2D without VSYNC)
Which in turn is 60fps PER EYE!!!!
In 3D Vision you cannot go above 60FPS and that is per swapBuffers routine which is responsible for both framebuffers (left + right eye) thus 60 fps per eye:)
WhiteSkyMage said:I will give you a small example as how I started understanding 3D after reading about it... So let's say, that with 2-way SLI GTX 770s you get 140FPS at 1080p on max settings, so:
FALSE!!!! 140fps in 2D = MAX 120fps in 3D (NO MATTER what you get in 2D without VSYNC)
Which in turn is 60fps PER EYE!!!!
In 3D Vision you cannot go above 60FPS and that is per swapBuffers routine which is responsible for both framebuffers (left + right eye) thus 60 fps per eye:)
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
Any advice would be much appreciated. As far as I've been able to tell, 3d vision seems to be working normally.
I'm using a 480 card with 12 GB of RAM and an Intel i7 3GHZ processor on an ASUS Sabertooth X58 motherboard if any of that information helps. Honestly, I feel like I should be able to blast my way through almost any game out there without much difficulty.
Any advice would be much appreciated. As far as I've been able to tell, 3d vision seems to be working normally.
I'm using a 480 card with 12 GB of RAM and an Intel i7 3GHZ processor on an ASUS Sabertooth X58 motherboard if any of that information helps. Honestly, I feel like I should be able to blast my way through almost any game out there without much difficulty.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
Yep it's normal, it's called stereoscopic as in 2 screens instead of 1. Take off your glasses and you can see both.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
[/quote]
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
Yep it's normal, it's called stereoscopic as in 2 screens instead of 1. Take off your glasses and you can see both.
Meaning at 1920x1080 with 3d enabled you have a total resolution running of 3840x2160.
If your framerate get's to low, lower your resolution or go sli.
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/suntorytimes
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
[/quote]
When I bought the 480 last October, it was the best GPU out there as the 500 series had not been released, but to my knowledge, 3D Vision is being advertised on cards much older than the 400 series. If I need something more powerful, what you're telling me is that I need a top of the line graphics card, which is certainly not in my budget right now. I splurged as it was to buy the monitor and the 3D Vision equipment (which seemed really overpriced since it's only feature is a 120hz refresh rate and is otherwise a very basic monitor).
It's really unfortunate that I'll need something more powerful than a 480 card to get a decent FPS in 3D Vision for games that are in some cases several years old. It sounds like I should probably return the 3D vision kit and monitor, since it's going to be at least six months to a year before I can upgrade my computer equipment, and that money would have come close to buying me a 590 card, which would have brought me a lot more gaming pleasure than what I've experienced with 3D vision so far.
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
Indeed. OP, you have a gtx 480 and 12GB of RAM? You should have spent that money on a better gpu, the 480 is good but for 3d you need something much more powerful if you want to max everything out at 1080p in each eye. The rest of your system is rather good though. :)
When I bought the 480 last October, it was the best GPU out there as the 500 series had not been released, but to my knowledge, 3D Vision is being advertised on cards much older than the 400 series. If I need something more powerful, what you're telling me is that I need a top of the line graphics card, which is certainly not in my budget right now. I splurged as it was to buy the monitor and the 3D Vision equipment (which seemed really overpriced since it's only feature is a 120hz refresh rate and is otherwise a very basic monitor).
It's really unfortunate that I'll need something more powerful than a 480 card to get a decent FPS in 3D Vision for games that are in some cases several years old. It sounds like I should probably return the 3D vision kit and monitor, since it's going to be at least six months to a year before I can upgrade my computer equipment, and that money would have come close to buying me a 590 card, which would have brought me a lot more gaming pleasure than what I've experienced with 3D vision so far.
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
[/quote]
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
NVIDIA really needs to do a better job explaining what users can expect with 3D vision. If I knew games where I was getting 50-60 FPS were going to drop to 25-30 FPS, I certainly wouldn't have made the purchase, at least not until I had a better GPU setup.
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
Intel I7 3820 3.8 Ghz,MSI MS7760 Motherboard, 6GB )2x MSI GTX670 (SLI),OCZ Vertex 230Gb SSD,OCZ Agility 120Gb SSD, Asus 3D VG278HR ,Optoma HD67 3D DLP Beamer with 95inch 2.5 gain screen.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x[u]1080[/u] running in 3d.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x1080 running in 3d.
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
[/quote]
The information on the internet, like most information on the internet, is inconsistent on this subject. Some people claim they get no FPS drop whatsoever and that it must be a problem with the users' hardware or improperly installed drivers. In fact, that's why I came here to post in the first place, because the information was inconsistent. I would never have known to ask the question before I experienced the issue, and I did not see this issue mentioned in reviews of 3D vision nor in the FAQ on these forums.
30 FPS works on some games, but not those which are graphically intensive.
For me, the 3D isn't worth lowering my graphics settings. The games are already in 3D (albeit projected on a 2D plane), the stereoscopic 3D is just, in my experience, a minor improvement on my current gaming configuration. Perhaps if I had surround sound and wasn't sharing a well-lit office with my wife, 3D vision would function better. But that's the my situation, at least at the present time. Perhaps things will be different when we move in a couple of months, but it seems rather extreme to build a gaming environment around stereoscopic 3D.
So...3d isn't worth the fps drop ?
Plenty of info on the internet about the fps drop with 3dvision...,you could have known...
Just lower thing like AA and you will still get a goof fps with your single 480...
30 fps is plenty,for playing a game these days...
More is better but not a must...
The information on the internet, like most information on the internet, is inconsistent on this subject. Some people claim they get no FPS drop whatsoever and that it must be a problem with the users' hardware or improperly installed drivers. In fact, that's why I came here to post in the first place, because the information was inconsistent. I would never have known to ask the question before I experienced the issue, and I did not see this issue mentioned in reviews of 3D vision nor in the FAQ on these forums.
30 FPS works on some games, but not those which are graphically intensive.
For me, the 3D isn't worth lowering my graphics settings. The games are already in 3D (albeit projected on a 2D plane), the stereoscopic 3D is just, in my experience, a minor improvement on my current gaming configuration. Perhaps if I had surround sound and wasn't sharing a well-lit office with my wife, 3D vision would function better. But that's the my situation, at least at the present time. Perhaps things will be different when we move in a couple of months, but it seems rather extreme to build a gaming environment around stereoscopic 3D.
Connacht, you could get another 48 and run in SLI and that would be enough to run nearly all games in 69fps maxed out. Sell 6gig of your ram if money is an issue as I don't know of any game that utilises all of that.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x[u]1920[/u] running in 3d.
[/quote]
Unfortunately SLI isn't an option for me. While I was building my computer, I discovered that the manufacturer of my motherboard had foolishly placed the only PCI express slot that my sound card was designed to use in-between the two PCI express slots designed to receive my graphics card(s). This means that in order for me to use SLI, I would have to remove my sound card. Next time I build a computer I'll know how to recognize poor design choices like this (after all, it's a learning experience) but for now, I'm stuck with what I have. Add to it that another 480 card really isn't in my budget right now. It's true that I have more RAM than I really need, but the extra is not worth $300 plus dollars. RAM is, fortunately I think, quite cheap these days for the most part.
Connacht, you could get another 48 and run in SLI and that would be enough to run nearly all games in 69fps maxed out. Sell 6gig of your ram if money is an issue as I don't know of any game that utilises all of that.
For the record Hurmpie, it would be the equivalent of 3840x1920 running in 3d.
Unfortunately SLI isn't an option for me. While I was building my computer, I discovered that the manufacturer of my motherboard had foolishly placed the only PCI express slot that my sound card was designed to use in-between the two PCI express slots designed to receive my graphics card(s). This means that in order for me to use SLI, I would have to remove my sound card. Next time I build a computer I'll know how to recognize poor design choices like this (after all, it's a learning experience) but for now, I'm stuck with what I have. Add to it that another 480 card really isn't in my budget right now. It's true that I have more RAM than I really need, but the extra is not worth $300 plus dollars. RAM is, fortunately I think, quite cheap these days for the most part.
any way if you are playing on 3d vision or TriDef 3D you will get decreasing on FPS
rather than playing a game force the 3D play like crysis 2 .. it will stay the same ^_^
so it is a game developers issue now
any way if you are playing on 3d vision or TriDef 3D you will get decreasing on FPS
rather than playing a game force the 3D play like crysis 2 .. it will stay the same ^_^
so it is a game developers issue now
4770k @ 4.2 Water cooled
32 Gigs DDR 3 2400
GTX Titan X SLI
Obsidian 800D
EVGA 1300 watt
1 Terabyte SSD raid 0
ASUS 27 inch 3D monitor 3D vision 2.
So you can still go SLI ?
Going sli is like night and day ....so much better...
....oeps old tread... :)
So you can still go SLI ?
Going sli is like night and day ....so much better...
....oeps old tread... :)
Intel I7 3820 3.8 Ghz,MSI MS7760 Motherboard, 6GB )2x MSI GTX670 (SLI),OCZ Vertex 230Gb SSD,OCZ Agility 120Gb SSD, Asus 3D VG278HR ,Optoma HD67 3D DLP Beamer with 95inch 2.5 gain screen.
To me 3D Vision was the biggest change in game industry since 16 bits consoles like Super Nes and Mega Drive reached the market in the 90's.
I still think that folks that don't find 3D Vision that attractive, might have some vision disavantage that causes some eye strain, and they dont really see the crispy perfect graphics that we 3D Vision loyal users can see. Hopefully I have good eyes and don't have any problems watching 3D movies and playing 3D games.
I see people with 16gb ram rigs, for what??? Unless you're producing a Spielberg movie and doing movie editing or something like that.
3D Vision rocks, it's not a minor improvement, it complete changes the gaming immersion experience....
I think sound comes in second place compared to 3D Vision, I just use my Asus board built-in sound card and I have a Bose Companion 2 sound system that really kicks ass, no need for a 5.1 surround system.
It's all a matter of taste, but using the computer onboard sound is not bad at all if you have a good Bose, Logitech, Harmon-kardon, and other good sound systems.
3D Vision and SLI is a must, that's for sure.
To me 3D Vision was the biggest change in game industry since 16 bits consoles like Super Nes and Mega Drive reached the market in the 90's.
I still think that folks that don't find 3D Vision that attractive, might have some vision disavantage that causes some eye strain, and they dont really see the crispy perfect graphics that we 3D Vision loyal users can see. Hopefully I have good eyes and don't have any problems watching 3D movies and playing 3D games.
I see people with 16gb ram rigs, for what??? Unless you're producing a Spielberg movie and doing movie editing or something like that.
3D Vision rocks, it's not a minor improvement, it complete changes the gaming immersion experience....
I think sound comes in second place compared to 3D Vision, I just use my Asus board built-in sound card and I have a Bose Companion 2 sound system that really kicks ass, no need for a 5.1 surround system.
It's all a matter of taste, but using the computer onboard sound is not bad at all if you have a good Bose, Logitech, Harmon-kardon, and other good sound systems.
3D Vision and SLI is a must, that's for sure.
Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bits - Core i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz - Asus Maximus IV Extreme Z68 - Geforce EVGA GTX 690 - 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600 9-9-9-24 (2T) - Thermaltake Armor+ - SSD Intel 510 Series Sata3 256GB - HD WD Caviar Black Sata3 64mb 2TB - HD WD Caviar Black 1TB Sata3 64mb - Bose Sound System - LG H20L GGW Blu Ray/DVD/CD RW - LG GH20 DVD RAM - PSU Thermaltake Toughpower 1000W - Samsung S27A950D 3D Vision Ready + 3D HDTV SAMSUNG PL63C7000 3DTVPLAY + ROLLERMOD CHECKERBOARD
|
70 FPS - 3D @ 1080p
/ \
35 FPS + 35 FPS - per eye
You can get maximum of 60FPS per eye, meaning 120FPS Total on 3D and 240FPS on normal 2D... It is quite a huge challenge to get around those numbers...
I have been canceling builds for 2 years, waiting for a GPU that can give a good performance for 3D, but even now, with the new Maxwell, I don't think I will get what's considered "perfect stereoscopic 3D" at 60FPS/eye.
I will anyways SLI those Maxwell cards, Watercool them and OC them, but that would be what? A 10FPS jump from OCing? The next big jump in performance you can expect next year with DX12 and W9. However I am upgrading probably this year since Oculus Rift is on it's way! I know I can get between the recommended FPS which are 120 :)
If you know, the new Asus Swift PG278Q, from all looks would be 3D compatible, so if you get the Nvidia 3D kit, you can play games at 3D on 1440p resolution...but I am afraid that it would be a big challenge if you don't hit at least 120FPS. Remember that 3D does not work with G-Sync! Get below 60 on 3D and you gonna feel sick to play that game...:D If it comes to the worst, I might even ones again cancel my build this year too...it hurts, but it would hurt even more if I fry my GPUs...If SLI would not help, then what will?
Merciless 3D gaming...
FALSE!!!! 140fps in 2D = MAX 120fps in 3D (NO MATTER what you get in 2D without VSYNC)
Which in turn is 60fps PER EYE!!!!
In 3D Vision you cannot go above 60FPS and that is per swapBuffers routine which is responsible for both framebuffers (left + right eye) thus 60 fps per eye:)
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)