First of all I want to point out that so far I've only used interlaced 3D which throws away half of the pixels.
Rough FPS in Witcher 3:
4K: 12fps
1080p: 45fps
720p: 60fps
I'm still sitting on a GTX 980.
An active 4K 3D solution would not throw away half the pixels. Looking at the performance I would say you need to trade resolution for graphical fidelity.
An active 4K 3D solution would not throw away half the pixels. Looking at the performance I would say you need to trade resolution for graphical fidelity.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
I personally only use 4k wherever possible, whether 3D or 2D. This means not playing the newest\most demanding games (I will probably wait for a 3080ti before even attempting these, I certainly would not entertain 12fps, or any less than ~45 in a non turn based game). I use a 65" 4k oled and 1080ti (this is passive and only displays half the pixels, but it must render them all before "discarding"). I guess a large part of the answer depends on the size of your screen\how close you sit\how good the panel is (All things being equal; 3d always looks better the sharper it is assuming your eye can resolve the detail, but I would personally take a passive display with sufficient resolution over an active display any day, it is a much better viewing experience, I would not for example consider 4k passive to 4k active an upgrade).
I personally only use 4k wherever possible, whether 3D or 2D. This means not playing the newest\most demanding games (I will probably wait for a 3080ti before even attempting these, I certainly would not entertain 12fps, or any less than ~45 in a non turn based game). I use a 65" 4k oled and 1080ti (this is passive and only displays half the pixels, but it must render them all before "discarding"). I guess a large part of the answer depends on the size of your screen\how close you sit\how good the panel is (All things being equal; 3d always looks better the sharper it is assuming your eye can resolve the detail, but I would personally take a passive display with sufficient resolution over an active display any day, it is a much better viewing experience, I would not for example consider 4k passive to 4k active an upgrade).
Going from 1080p to 1440p was a big improvement for me already. I suppose full frame 4K will be even better, if we ever get a 3D Vision monitor like that.
But performance is important too. Anything less than 60fps (or 50fps at 50Hz, if it's a dark game) annoys me. I usually have these options:
1- Drop settings and maintain resolution: sometimes I have to drop everything to the lowest to go from 40fps to 60fps. Not worth it in that case.
2- Drop resolution (usually to 1080p) and maintain settings: easier performance gains than the previous one, but if the game has nice textures, geometry, grass... the result can be pretty ugly.
3- Deal with lower fps at 1440p and high settings. I sometimes played TW3 like this, and sometimes like option 2.
4- Wait for a new GPU that can handle 1440p + 60fps + good settings: lol at RTX prices.
5- The low fps are a result of a CPU bottleneck.
5.1- Deal with it, like I do 99.9999% of the time.
5.2- Wait for better CPUs (lol).
Going from 1080p to 1440p was a big improvement for me already. I suppose full frame 4K will be even better, if we ever get a 3D Vision monitor like that.
But performance is important too. Anything less than 60fps (or 50fps at 50Hz, if it's a dark game) annoys me. I usually have these options:
1- Drop settings and maintain resolution: sometimes I have to drop everything to the lowest to go from 40fps to 60fps. Not worth it in that case.
2- Drop resolution (usually to 1080p) and maintain settings: easier performance gains than the previous one, but if the game has nice textures, geometry, grass... the result can be pretty ugly.
3- Deal with lower fps at 1440p and high settings. I sometimes played TW3 like this, and sometimes like option 2.
4- Wait for a new GPU that can handle 1440p + 60fps + good settings: lol at RTX prices.
5- The low fps are a result of a CPU bottleneck.
5.1- Deal with it, like I do 99.9999% of the time.
5.2- Wait for better CPUs (lol).
[quote="DPAam"] I guess a large part of the answer depends on the size of your screen\how close you sit\how good the panel is (All things being equal; 3d always looks better the sharper it is assuming your eye can resolve the detail[/quote]
Exactly what he says.
I can't understand the people that would buy a 4k 27 inch screen, it makes no sense. The pixels are so small that you gain almost nothing and lose performance wise.
DPAam said: I guess a large part of the answer depends on the size of your screen\how close you sit\how good the panel is (All things being equal; 3d always looks better the sharper it is assuming your eye can resolve the detail
Exactly what he says.
I can't understand the people that would buy a 4k 27 inch screen, it makes no sense. The pixels are so small that you gain almost nothing and lose performance wise.
Next year we ought to have another 7nm GPU architecture / shrink from nVidia which ought to give better performance vs price ratio. 20XX GPUs from nVidia are 12nm.
Next year, we shall also have AMD's Zen 2 architecture on 7nm, beating Intel to it by a mile (Intel is still trying to produce 10nm which has been an unmitigated disaster).
It does give a ray of hope that both CPU IPC x clock performance and GPU performance might realistically increase by ~ 35% relatively soon...
Next year we ought to have another 7nm GPU architecture / shrink from nVidia which ought to give better performance vs price ratio. 20XX GPUs from nVidia are 12nm.
Next year, we shall also have AMD's Zen 2 architecture on 7nm, beating Intel to it by a mile (Intel is still trying to produce 10nm which has been an unmitigated disaster).
It does give a ray of hope that both CPU IPC x clock performance and GPU performance might realistically increase by ~ 35% relatively soon...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
[quote="D-Man11"][quote="DPAam"] I guess a large part of the answer depends on the size of your screen\how close you sit\how good the panel is (All things being equal; 3d always looks better the sharper it is assuming your eye can resolve the detail[/quote]
Exactly what he says.
I can't understand the people that would buy a 4k 27 inch screen, it makes no sense. The pixels are so small that you gain almost nothing and lose performance wise.[/quote]
Because we buy shit we don't need and it Most often makes no Sense LOL
DPAam said: I guess a large part of the answer depends on the size of your screen\how close you sit\how good the panel is (All things being equal; 3d always looks better the sharper it is assuming your eye can resolve the detail
Exactly what he says.
I can't understand the people that would buy a 4k 27 inch screen, it makes no sense. The pixels are so small that you gain almost nothing and lose performance wise.
Because we buy shit we don't need and it Most often makes no Sense LOL
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
I have to say no, since I am in the 60fps at almost any cost camp. I don't see 60 fps 3dvision in 4k achievable any time soon, and thats not taking into account ray tracing on the horizon which will be a performance hog. So I believe 1440p is the current sweet spot, and even that requires SLI often. As I have said before I wasn't even happy with 1440p until I got SLI
You get a nice resolution boost without what I feel is diminishing returns and I don't care how high the resolution is 60fps with all the graphics bells and whistles on always looks (and more importantly feels) more superior to me.
I also have 27' screen but sit very close due to my cockpit setup so I think 4k is a waste of time in my environment vs the performance cost.
I also think it's a waste of time for consoles because they have to put up with crap performance as well, but it makes more sense there with the big screen tv based couch nature of the experience.
I have to say no, since I am in the 60fps at almost any cost camp. I don't see 60 fps 3dvision in 4k achievable any time soon, and thats not taking into account ray tracing on the horizon which will be a performance hog. So I believe 1440p is the current sweet spot, and even that requires SLI often. As I have said before I wasn't even happy with 1440p until I got SLI
You get a nice resolution boost without what I feel is diminishing returns and I don't care how high the resolution is 60fps with all the graphics bells and whistles on always looks (and more importantly feels) more superior to me.
I also have 27' screen but sit very close due to my cockpit setup so I think 4k is a waste of time in my environment vs the performance cost.
I also think it's a waste of time for consoles because they have to put up with crap performance as well, but it makes more sense there with the big screen tv based couch nature of the experience.
i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
EVGA 1080TI SLI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS
3D Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)
I can think of many visual upgrades and resolution after fullhd is the last one that i can think off.
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
Well, i never had a chance to test an active 3D 120hz solution, but between lose half pixels on passive 3D and have to Deal with flickering and ghosting on active 3D 60hz i prefer the passive 3D ALL the time.
To me active 3D solutions makes 3D even more uncomfortable and less pratical.
Well, i never had a chance to test an active 3D 120hz solution, but between lose half pixels on passive 3D and have to Deal with flickering and ghosting on active 3D 60hz i prefer the passive 3D ALL the time.
To me active 3D solutions makes 3D even more uncomfortable and less pratical.
Do some passive 3D TVs have blur reduction options too (at the same time as 3D)? The famous (super expensive) LG OLED don't have it.
3D is my priority number one for displays. The second would be blur reduction. Persistence over 2ms is crap for me. The PG278QR is a bit over that, instead of being able to go down to 1.4ms like the old 1080p Lightboost monitors. It annoys me sometimes, but the good picture quality and low crosstalk compensates it.
I assume projectors have strobing. If not.... ugh.
Do some passive 3D TVs have blur reduction options too (at the same time as 3D)? The famous (super expensive) LG OLED don't have it.
3D is my priority number one for displays. The second would be blur reduction. Persistence over 2ms is crap for me. The PG278QR is a bit over that, instead of being able to go down to 1.4ms like the old 1080p Lightboost monitors. It annoys me sometimes, but the good picture quality and low crosstalk compensates it.
I assume projectors have strobing. If not.... ugh.
@masterotaku, my LG TV (UH850) does something similar to my BenQ monitor's blur reduction, but don't know if it's really blur reduction:
One of the trumotion options darkens the screen when activated similar to BenQ blur reduction and I always use this one with all the 3D movies I watch, image is more clear and there's less motion blur. Other trumotion options don't darken screen just insert extra frames as usual.
If it's a blur reduction function maybe with TV's service menu it can be activated without using trumotion.
@masterotaku, my LG TV (UH850) does something similar to my BenQ monitor's blur reduction, but don't know if it's really blur reduction:
One of the trumotion options darkens the screen when activated similar to BenQ blur reduction and I always use this one with all the 3D movies I watch, image is more clear and there's less motion blur. Other trumotion options don't darken screen just insert extra frames as usual.
If it's a blur reduction function maybe with TV's service menu it can be activated without using trumotion.
Asus Deluxe Gen3, Core i7 2700k@4.5Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, 16 GB RAM, Win 7 64bit
Samsung Pro 250 GB SSD, 4 TB WD Black (games)
Benq XL2720Z
[quote="masterotaku"]Do some passive 3D TVs have blur reduction options too (at the same time as 3D)? The famous (super expensive) LG OLED don't have it.
3D is my priority number one for displays. The second would be blur reduction. Persistence over 2ms is crap for me. The PG278QR is a bit over that, instead of being able to go down to 1.4ms like the old 1080p Lightboost monitors. It annoys me sometimes, but the good picture quality and low crosstalk compensates it.
I assume projectors have strobing. If not.... ugh.[/quote]
As far as I understand it there are a couple of different aspects to this.
Most blur reduction systems are all to do with backlight strobing and are designed to combat the problems with image persistance. This is mainly an issue with LCD based display technology, it shouldn't really apply to OLED or DLP, since they are in orders of magnitude more responsive.
Somewhere along the line, blur reduction has been confused a bit with frame interpolation. Aka trumotion/clearview etc. etc. etc. These functions can improve the line resolution on a sample and hold display, which most if not all TVs are, including the OLEDs.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2820329-motion-handling-comparisons.html
masterotaku said:Do some passive 3D TVs have blur reduction options too (at the same time as 3D)? The famous (super expensive) LG OLED don't have it.
3D is my priority number one for displays. The second would be blur reduction. Persistence over 2ms is crap for me. The PG278QR is a bit over that, instead of being able to go down to 1.4ms like the old 1080p Lightboost monitors. It annoys me sometimes, but the good picture quality and low crosstalk compensates it.
I assume projectors have strobing. If not.... ugh.
As far as I understand it there are a couple of different aspects to this.
Most blur reduction systems are all to do with backlight strobing and are designed to combat the problems with image persistance. This is mainly an issue with LCD based display technology, it shouldn't really apply to OLED or DLP, since they are in orders of magnitude more responsive.
Somewhere along the line, blur reduction has been confused a bit with frame interpolation. Aka trumotion/clearview etc. etc. etc. These functions can improve the line resolution on a sample and hold display, which most if not all TVs are, including the OLEDs.
There are certain games I prefer on my 4k oled vs my monitor. But no matter what , they image is stunning on everything for the 4k tv. Seems like games that I am playing for immersion is best on the 4k tv as long as I can hit solid 60 fps. Ride 2 , Resident evil 7, The old batman games. Other games seem to need the monitor for fps purposes. But I can tell the smoothness of the monitor vs the TV no matter if both are hitting 60fps.
There are certain games I prefer on my 4k oled vs my monitor. But no matter what , they image is stunning on everything for the 4k tv. Seems like games that I am playing for immersion is best on the 4k tv as long as I can hit solid 60 fps. Ride 2 , Resident evil 7, The old batman games. Other games seem to need the monitor for fps purposes. But I can tell the smoothness of the monitor vs the TV no matter if both are hitting 60fps.
I think the perfect balance today is 1440p 3D (at least with my GTX 1070). 4K is too demanding even for 2d. And 1440p in 27" is sharper than 4k on 65", if I put my 27" screen in front of a 65" 4k screen in that same area there are more pixels on my 27" monitor. An obvious solution is to sit further from screen, but as further you need to go less apparent size and less important to have a great size.
The solution is a 4k 3D monitor less than 40". But as far as I know there's still no 4k 3d gaming monitors...
I think the perfect balance today is 1440p 3D (at least with my GTX 1070). 4K is too demanding even for 2d. And 1440p in 27" is sharper than 4k on 65", if I put my 27" screen in front of a 65" 4k screen in that same area there are more pixels on my 27" monitor. An obvious solution is to sit further from screen, but as further you need to go less apparent size and less important to have a great size.
The solution is a 4k 3D monitor less than 40". But as far as I know there's still no 4k 3d gaming monitors...
Rough FPS in Witcher 3:
4K: 12fps
1080p: 45fps
720p: 60fps
I'm still sitting on a GTX 980.
An active 4K 3D solution would not throw away half the pixels. Looking at the performance I would say you need to trade resolution for graphical fidelity.
Thanks to everybody using my assembler it warms my heart.
To have a critical piece of code that everyone can enjoy!
What more can you ask for?
donations: ulfjalmbrant@hotmail.com
But performance is important too. Anything less than 60fps (or 50fps at 50Hz, if it's a dark game) annoys me. I usually have these options:
1- Drop settings and maintain resolution: sometimes I have to drop everything to the lowest to go from 40fps to 60fps. Not worth it in that case.
2- Drop resolution (usually to 1080p) and maintain settings: easier performance gains than the previous one, but if the game has nice textures, geometry, grass... the result can be pretty ugly.
3- Deal with lower fps at 1440p and high settings. I sometimes played TW3 like this, and sometimes like option 2.
4- Wait for a new GPU that can handle 1440p + 60fps + good settings: lol at RTX prices.
5- The low fps are a result of a CPU bottleneck.
5.1- Deal with it, like I do 99.9999% of the time.
5.2- Wait for better CPUs (lol).
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com
Exactly what he says.
I can't understand the people that would buy a 4k 27 inch screen, it makes no sense. The pixels are so small that you gain almost nothing and lose performance wise.
Next year, we shall also have AMD's Zen 2 architecture on 7nm, beating Intel to it by a mile (Intel is still trying to produce 10nm which has been an unmitigated disaster).
It does give a ray of hope that both CPU IPC x clock performance and GPU performance might realistically increase by ~ 35% relatively soon...
Windows 10 64-bit, Intel 7700K @ 5.1GHz, 16GB 3600MHz CL15 DDR4 RAM, 2x GTX 1080 SLI, Asus Maximus IX Hero, Sound Blaster ZxR, PCIe Quad SSD, Oculus Rift CV1, DLP Link PGD-150 glasses, ViewSonic PJD6531w 3D DLP Projector @ 1280x800 120Hz native / 2560x1600 120Hz DSR 3D Gaming.
Because we buy shit we don't need and it Most often makes no Sense LOL
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
You get a nice resolution boost without what I feel is diminishing returns and I don't care how high the resolution is 60fps with all the graphics bells and whistles on always looks (and more importantly feels) more superior to me.
I also have 27' screen but sit very close due to my cockpit setup so I think 4k is a waste of time in my environment vs the performance cost.
I also think it's a waste of time for consoles because they have to put up with crap performance as well, but it makes more sense there with the big screen tv based couch nature of the experience.
i7-4790K CPU 4.8Ghz stable overclock.
16 GB RAM Corsair
EVGA 1080TI SLI
Samsung SSD 840Pro
ASUS Z97-WS
3D Surround ASUS Rog Swift PG278Q(R), 2x PG278Q (yes it works)
Obutto R3volution.
Windows 10 pro 64x (Windows 7 Dual boot)
CoreX9 Custom watercooling (valkswagen polo radiator)
I7-8700k@stock
TitanX pascal with shitty stock cooler
Win7/10
Video: Passive 3D fullhd 3D@60hz/channel Denon x1200w /Hc5 x 2 Geobox501->eeColorBoxes->polarizers/omega filttersCustom made silverscreen
Ocupation: Enterprenior.Painting/surfacing/constructions
Interests/skills:
3D gaming,3D movies, 3D printing,Drums, Bass and guitar.
Suomi - FINLAND - perkele
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com
To me active 3D solutions makes 3D even more uncomfortable and less pratical.
3D is my priority number one for displays. The second would be blur reduction. Persistence over 2ms is crap for me. The PG278QR is a bit over that, instead of being able to go down to 1.4ms like the old 1080p Lightboost monitors. It annoys me sometimes, but the good picture quality and low crosstalk compensates it.
I assume projectors have strobing. If not.... ugh.
CPU: Intel Core i7 7700K @ 4.9GHz
Motherboard: Gigabyte Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5
RAM: GSKILL Ripjaws Z 16GB 3866MHz CL18
GPU: Gainward Phoenix 1080 GLH
Monitor: Asus PG278QR
Speakers: Logitech Z506
Donations account: masterotakusuko@gmail.com
One of the trumotion options darkens the screen when activated similar to BenQ blur reduction and I always use this one with all the 3D movies I watch, image is more clear and there's less motion blur. Other trumotion options don't darken screen just insert extra frames as usual.
If it's a blur reduction function maybe with TV's service menu it can be activated without using trumotion.
Asus Deluxe Gen3, Core i7 2700k@4.5Ghz, GTX 1080Ti, 16 GB RAM, Win 7 64bit
Samsung Pro 250 GB SSD, 4 TB WD Black (games)
Benq XL2720Z
As far as I understand it there are a couple of different aspects to this.
Most blur reduction systems are all to do with backlight strobing and are designed to combat the problems with image persistance. This is mainly an issue with LCD based display technology, it shouldn't really apply to OLED or DLP, since they are in orders of magnitude more responsive.
Somewhere along the line, blur reduction has been confused a bit with frame interpolation. Aka trumotion/clearview etc. etc. etc. These functions can improve the line resolution on a sample and hold display, which most if not all TVs are, including the OLEDs.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-oled-technology-flat-panels-general/2820329-motion-handling-comparisons.html
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
The solution is a 4k 3D monitor less than 40". But as far as I know there's still no 4k 3d gaming monitors...