I did my research, honest.
I was reading every review/article/benchmark I could find before buying this, and they all said the same story: 3D vision will more than cut your frames in half. It only makes sense, really, I was expecting it. Any game I want to use this on, I'm averaging 100-200fps in 2D, and I was willing to accept playing with an effective 30-60fps respectively. I've just installed it tonight with my new Asus 120hz...
In COD:BO I went from avg 120fps in full servers to 15-20fps tops.
In TF2 I went from usually ~150-200fps to no more than 40 at the best of times in empty servers, in the single digits at the worst times.
Hell, in CS:S I've been frame capped at 300, and with 3D Vision I'm lucky to hit 50.
Dropping video settings and resolution (drastically) hardly seems to make a change in these results.
L4D seems to work just fine (downright sexy actually), and I average 50-60fps, but I wonder if thats because its a less stressful game. I want to love this, I really do, but I cant play shooters like this haha.
Also, does the nvidia crosshair affect fps? I swear, during some testing I literally dropped 10fps when I toggled it, and they didn't come back up when I turned it off.
I'm running:
i7 920 @ 3.4ghz
6GB ddr3
120gb SSD as my OS/App drive
Asus GTX 285 1gb
Win7 64bit
I know you'll jump all over my vid card, but the card hardly came out a year and a half ago. I'm hoping you're not gonna tell me to run out and buy a $500 card because if so this [b]SHOULD HAVE[/b] been published somewhere as "recommended requirements" as a warning. Not only that, but my card is no longer being manufactured so finding a card to SLI is a little difficult. My issue isn't necessarily the fps themselves anyways, my issue is whether or not 3D Vision should be hammering my performance a good 80% like it is when I've heard differently. I've tried every combination of settings, and nothing even changes my results haha. Lower res, lower gfx, with and without AA/AF... speaking of which, the software forces vsync right? Even with 3D off my games ALL cap at 120fps now. I have double checked that the vsync settings in both the nv control panel and the game are OFF but I'm still capped.
I guess I should just draw out my questions:
1) Given my hardware, should 3D Vision be causing 75%-90% performance drops?
2) If it [i]shouldn't[/i] be, would you think its some settings of mine, lack of hardware umph, or something out of my hands entirely?
3) Has anyone heard of your 2D frames being capped at 120 even after disabling 3D Vision?
4) If it [i]really, really, really[/i] is just my video card, why in the world would you publish "supported" cards on the site without any "recommended" section?
Its beautiful when it works, but it doesn't.
-ps- 120hz monitor is awesome.
I was reading every review/article/benchmark I could find before buying this, and they all said the same story: 3D vision will more than cut your frames in half. It only makes sense, really, I was expecting it. Any game I want to use this on, I'm averaging 100-200fps in 2D, and I was willing to accept playing with an effective 30-60fps respectively. I've just installed it tonight with my new Asus 120hz...
In COD:BO I went from avg 120fps in full servers to 15-20fps tops.
In TF2 I went from usually ~150-200fps to no more than 40 at the best of times in empty servers, in the single digits at the worst times.
Hell, in CS:S I've been frame capped at 300, and with 3D Vision I'm lucky to hit 50.
Dropping video settings and resolution (drastically) hardly seems to make a change in these results.
L4D seems to work just fine (downright sexy actually), and I average 50-60fps, but I wonder if thats because its a less stressful game. I want to love this, I really do, but I cant play shooters like this haha.
Also, does the nvidia crosshair affect fps? I swear, during some testing I literally dropped 10fps when I toggled it, and they didn't come back up when I turned it off.
I'm running:
i7 920 @ 3.4ghz
6GB ddr3
120gb SSD as my OS/App drive
Asus GTX 285 1gb
Win7 64bit
I know you'll jump all over my vid card, but the card hardly came out a year and a half ago. I'm hoping you're not gonna tell me to run out and buy a $500 card because if so this SHOULD HAVE been published somewhere as "recommended requirements" as a warning. Not only that, but my card is no longer being manufactured so finding a card to SLI is a little difficult. My issue isn't necessarily the fps themselves anyways, my issue is whether or not 3D Vision should be hammering my performance a good 80% like it is when I've heard differently. I've tried every combination of settings, and nothing even changes my results haha. Lower res, lower gfx, with and without AA/AF... speaking of which, the software forces vsync right? Even with 3D off my games ALL cap at 120fps now. I have double checked that the vsync settings in both the nv control panel and the game are OFF but I'm still capped.
I guess I should just draw out my questions:
1) Given my hardware, should 3D Vision be causing 75%-90% performance drops?
2) If it shouldn't be, would you think its some settings of mine, lack of hardware umph, or something out of my hands entirely?
3) Has anyone heard of your 2D frames being capped at 120 even after disabling 3D Vision?
4) If it really, really, really is just my video card, why in the world would you publish "supported" cards on the site without any "recommended" section?
Odd benchmark results, valid because he uses my card:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16313/4
It seems in some games (L4D), he's seeing drastic results with SLI, and in other games (Crysis) there's no benefit at all. Is there a hardware related reason for this, like memory/bandwidth, or does it come down to the game engines and their respective 3D profiles?
Odd benchmark results, valid because he uses my card:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16313/4
It seems in some games (L4D), he's seeing drastic results with SLI, and in other games (Crysis) there's no benefit at all. Is there a hardware related reason for this, like memory/bandwidth, or does it come down to the game engines and their respective 3D profiles?
I heard that using the nvidia crosshairs will slow things down badly.. Try turning them off if they are on.
The other thing that I noticed affecting performance the most for me was AA... I tried it at like 8 AA but it ran choppy.. After setting it to 4 AA things works fine. I have a gtx 280
Though I heard that 50- 80 percent decrease is common. 50 is good for games since it has to basically do double the work... So Half fps is expected. Though some games arn't optimized for 3d as well as others so it can get as bad as an 80% decrease.. It really just depends on the game, and what you are running..
No need to raise minimal specs like you suggest. You can still run 3d movies, photo's and some games with what you and I have.. Just don't expect to play the latest and greatest with it... Heck I wouldn't expect to play the latest and greatest games out there with my card, even with 3d turned off.
I heard that using the nvidia crosshairs will slow things down badly.. Try turning them off if they are on.
The other thing that I noticed affecting performance the most for me was AA... I tried it at like 8 AA but it ran choppy.. After setting it to 4 AA things works fine. I have a gtx 280
Though I heard that 50- 80 percent decrease is common. 50 is good for games since it has to basically do double the work... So Half fps is expected. Though some games arn't optimized for 3d as well as others so it can get as bad as an 80% decrease.. It really just depends on the game, and what you are running..
No need to raise minimal specs like you suggest. You can still run 3d movies, photo's and some games with what you and I have.. Just don't expect to play the latest and greatest with it... Heck I wouldn't expect to play the latest and greatest games out there with my card, even with 3d turned off.
since 3d cuts the rate in half for every game, don't expect to ever be able to play the newest games with even the best graphics card, unless you have sli...
There are plenty of games a few years old to play in 3d right now.... Play batman AA.. It's great.....
In 2 or 4 years upgrade your system... Then play all the games that are out now... Not only will your system be advanced enough to handle them, since the games would have been out for a few years, they will be much cheaper to purchase...
Unless you are the type of person that NEEDS to buy a game when it first comes out and always be on top of it.... I say give it time... I usually only play games that are 1-3 years older from the time I get a computer.. This ensures that my pc will always be able to be powerful enough to run it and games will be cheap enough to buy...
If there is a game you must have, write it down so you don't forget it in a year or two....
since 3d cuts the rate in half for every game, don't expect to ever be able to play the newest games with even the best graphics card, unless you have sli...
There are plenty of games a few years old to play in 3d right now.... Play batman AA.. It's great.....
In 2 or 4 years upgrade your system... Then play all the games that are out now... Not only will your system be advanced enough to handle them, since the games would have been out for a few years, they will be much cheaper to purchase...
Unless you are the type of person that NEEDS to buy a game when it first comes out and always be on top of it.... I say give it time... I usually only play games that are 1-3 years older from the time I get a computer.. This ensures that my pc will always be able to be powerful enough to run it and games will be cheap enough to buy...
If there is a game you must have, write it down so you don't forget it in a year or two....
Turn off AA and AF. Only game at max resolution (1080p or 720p).
overclock cpu/gpu.
(optional) For each game, choose its "2D/3D profile" in nvidia control panel before playing.
OR upgrade to 580 or wait for the upcoming dual gpu card (595?).
Is 1GB ram (gtx285) enough for 3D ??
Skip games like metro2033 for now.
L4D is a "very low stress" dx9 game compared to those other games. By the way, 100+ fps is not needed on a 60/120Hz monitor.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
AsRock X58 Extreme6 mobo
Intel Core-i7 950 @ 4ghz
12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 780 3gb
Corsair TX 950w PSU
NZXT Phantom Red/Black Case
3d Vision 1 w/ Samsung 2233rz Monitor
3d Vision 2 w/ ASUS VG278HE Monitor
[quote name='AcidBong' date='02 December 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1291306077' post='1154792']
Hey bud, I also use a single GTX 285.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
[/quote]
Thx Acid, this is good information, and at least I know its not unique to me. People keep saying COD:BO is new so its stressful, and I have to remind them that same engine has been used for years haha.
Firestone, although I appreciate your input too, you should realize that waiting 2 years to buy a game for 3D is ridiculous when its smooth as butter in 2D today lol. I understand what you mean, but waiting two years to buy a multiplayer game makes no sense. Also, dont knock your 280, its a good card and can play any game today... if not in 3D anyways.
100+ fps might not be required Partol, but it is [i]desired[/i]. Even on a 60hz monitor, there's a noticeable difference between 60fps and 120fps, especially on hair-trigger shooters.
[quote name='AcidBong' date='02 December 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1291306077' post='1154792']
Hey bud, I also use a single GTX 285.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
Thx Acid, this is good information, and at least I know its not unique to me. People keep saying COD:BO is new so its stressful, and I have to remind them that same engine has been used for years haha.
Firestone, although I appreciate your input too, you should realize that waiting 2 years to buy a game for 3D is ridiculous when its smooth as butter in 2D today lol. I understand what you mean, but waiting two years to buy a multiplayer game makes no sense. Also, dont knock your 280, its a good card and can play any game today... if not in 3D anyways.
100+ fps might not be required Partol, but it is desired. Even on a 60hz monitor, there's a noticeable difference between 60fps and 120fps, especially on hair-trigger shooters.
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution! /pinch.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':pinch:' />
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution! /pinch.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':pinch:' />
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
Intel i7-4770k
EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC
ASRock Z87 Extreme4
8GB DDR3, 240GB Intel SSD, 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Siedon 120M Liquid Cooling
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" 2560x1600
Alienware OptX AW2310 23" 1920x1080 with 3D Vision
Acer H5360 720p Projector with 3D Vision
ONKYO HT-S5300 7.1 Sound System
Logitech G19 Keyboard, G9 Mouse, G25 Wheel
Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
[quote name='FormulaRedline' date='02 December 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1291315469' post='1154852']
OP, you're killing me here!
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution! /pinch.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':pinch:' />
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
[/quote]
Resolution has been 1080p, old monitor and new. I'm going to guess you're right on the vram, unfortunately I'm a poor single guy working through college so upgrading again will have to wait. Maybe one of those rumored 595's in a year or so. Its a shame, cuz the 285 is still handling everything like a champ in 2D. I'd be upgrading purely for 3D alone, and at that point a $150 3D Vision purchase ends up actually costing closer to a grand between the qualified monitor, 3D kit, and a graphics solution that doesnt choke up. Believe me, if purely lowering my graphics gave me more fps I wouldnt be here, I'd be enjoying 3D games in lower resolutions lol.
Its like a bait to buy more nvidia products... if that makes sense? I mean, I have nothing against my nvidia products and would still probably buy in the future anyways, but it does purturb me that I'm literally trapped into a future nvidia card purchase whether I intended to or not.
I shouldn't be upset about it, its all things I probably would have bought anyways, and things I should have thought about prior to purchase. What I'm upset about though is that my future choices, unbeknownst to me beforehand, have been limited... if I want my 3D purchase to see any good use anyways. I had assumed my GTX 285 would do the job, and that I would be able to make my own choice later if I wanted to continue with an nVidia upgrade, but I guess I'm the fool for assuming.
On the upside, its not particularly like I've lost any money. The 3D kit can be set aside for future use when I'm able to. The monitor is great by itself anyways. I also need to play with crosshair settings like Acid suggested, I play mostly valve games so it could still turn out alright.
[quote name='FormulaRedline' date='02 December 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1291315469' post='1154852']
OP, you're killing me here!
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution! /pinch.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':pinch:' />
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
Resolution has been 1080p, old monitor and new. I'm going to guess you're right on the vram, unfortunately I'm a poor single guy working through college so upgrading again will have to wait. Maybe one of those rumored 595's in a year or so. Its a shame, cuz the 285 is still handling everything like a champ in 2D. I'd be upgrading purely for 3D alone, and at that point a $150 3D Vision purchase ends up actually costing closer to a grand between the qualified monitor, 3D kit, and a graphics solution that doesnt choke up. Believe me, if purely lowering my graphics gave me more fps I wouldnt be here, I'd be enjoying 3D games in lower resolutions lol.
Its like a bait to buy more nvidia products... if that makes sense? I mean, I have nothing against my nvidia products and would still probably buy in the future anyways, but it does purturb me that I'm literally trapped into a future nvidia card purchase whether I intended to or not.
I shouldn't be upset about it, its all things I probably would have bought anyways, and things I should have thought about prior to purchase. What I'm upset about though is that my future choices, unbeknownst to me beforehand, have been limited... if I want my 3D purchase to see any good use anyways. I had assumed my GTX 285 would do the job, and that I would be able to make my own choice later if I wanted to continue with an nVidia upgrade, but I guess I'm the fool for assuming.
On the upside, its not particularly like I've lost any money. The 3D kit can be set aside for future use when I'm able to. The monitor is great by itself anyways. I also need to play with crosshair settings like Acid suggested, I play mostly valve games so it could still turn out alright.
That must be what is happening. Going from 1080p per frame to 1080p x 2 per frame should theoretically cut your frame rate in half assuming GPU power was your limiter. Obviously, that is not what is happening. From experience I can tell you that the CPU and RAM not your bottlenecks, but you can easily verify that by looking at the memory and CPU usage in Window's Task Manager or Performance Monitor. This would lead me to believe it must be getting hit on the VRAM. Keep in mind you are now trying to render 4.14 Megapixels per frame, which is actually more pixels than 2560x1600 resolution. This is not Nvidia's fault, you just need to get used to looking at the 2560x1600 benchmarks instead of the 1920x1080 benchmarks to see what games you can run from now on!
Nevertheless, there is hope with your current card. As others have said, definitely make sure you turn off any AA options. Check in the game's options as well as the Nvidia control panel to make sure it is not overriding. If this still doesn't do it, try dropping down to 720p resolutions. If that still doesn't work, then there is probably something strange going on as 720p x 2 is actually less pixels than 1080p.
That must be what is happening. Going from 1080p per frame to 1080p x 2 per frame should theoretically cut your frame rate in half assuming GPU power was your limiter. Obviously, that is not what is happening. From experience I can tell you that the CPU and RAM not your bottlenecks, but you can easily verify that by looking at the memory and CPU usage in Window's Task Manager or Performance Monitor. This would lead me to believe it must be getting hit on the VRAM. Keep in mind you are now trying to render 4.14 Megapixels per frame, which is actually more pixels than 2560x1600 resolution. This is not Nvidia's fault, you just need to get used to looking at the 2560x1600 benchmarks instead of the 1920x1080 benchmarks to see what games you can run from now on!
Nevertheless, there is hope with your current card. As others have said, definitely make sure you turn off any AA options. Check in the game's options as well as the Nvidia control panel to make sure it is not overriding. If this still doesn't do it, try dropping down to 720p resolutions. If that still doesn't work, then there is probably something strange going on as 720p x 2 is actually less pixels than 1080p.
Intel i7-4770k
EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC
ASRock Z87 Extreme4
8GB DDR3, 240GB Intel SSD, 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Siedon 120M Liquid Cooling
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" 2560x1600
Alienware OptX AW2310 23" 1920x1080 with 3D Vision
Acer H5360 720p Projector with 3D Vision
ONKYO HT-S5300 7.1 Sound System
Logitech G19 Keyboard, G9 Mouse, G25 Wheel
Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
[quote name='FormulaRedline' date='02 December 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1291325784' post='1154937']
Keep in mind you are now trying to render 4.14 Megapixels per frame, which is actually more pixels than 2560x1600 resolution. This is not Nvidia's fault, you just need to get used to looking at the 2560x1600 benchmarks instead of the 1920x1080 benchmarks to see what games you can run from now on!
[/quote]
4.14 JIGGAWATTS?!?
That actually makes a lot of sense, CURSE YOU MATH! Thx for the enlightenment anyways.
[quote name='FormulaRedline' date='02 December 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1291325784' post='1154937']
Keep in mind you are now trying to render 4.14 Megapixels per frame, which is actually more pixels than 2560x1600 resolution. This is not Nvidia's fault, you just need to get used to looking at the 2560x1600 benchmarks instead of the 1920x1080 benchmarks to see what games you can run from now on!
4.14 JIGGAWATTS?!?
That actually makes a lot of sense, CURSE YOU MATH! Thx for the enlightenment anyways.
[quote]4) If it really, really, really is just my video card, why in the world would you publish "supported" cards on the site without any "recommended" section?[/quote]
That would be hard... really hard. Not everyone is playing shooters online, you know. Lots of games work fine at 20fps. There are games out there that might work in S3D with just an 8800 card.
4) If it really, really, really is just my video card, why in the world would you publish "supported" cards on the site without any "recommended" section?
That would be hard... really hard. Not everyone is playing shooters online, you know. Lots of games work fine at 20fps. There are games out there that might work in S3D with just an 8800 card.
'Works fine' is different than having a good experience. In my opinion, 20fps in any game would do more to take me [i]out[/i] of the experience than to swallow me in 3D goodness. At any rate, I'm benching the 3D in shooters until I have hardware to play it.
How about:
"For the smoothest 3D experience possible, nVidia recommends the (card name here) or better"
'Works fine' is different than having a good experience. In my opinion, 20fps in any game would do more to take me out of the experience than to swallow me in 3D goodness. At any rate, I'm benching the 3D in shooters until I have hardware to play it.
How about:
"For the smoothest 3D experience possible, nVidia recommends the (card name here) or better"
Isn't there a website or tool where Nvidia actually goes through and recommends settings for major games at different resolutions based on the card? I thoght I remember seeing this posted somewhere, but now I can't find it.
Isn't there a website or tool where Nvidia actually goes through and recommends settings for major games at different resolutions based on the card? I thoght I remember seeing this posted somewhere, but now I can't find it.
Intel i7-4770k
EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC
ASRock Z87 Extreme4
8GB DDR3, 240GB Intel SSD, 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Siedon 120M Liquid Cooling
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" 2560x1600
Alienware OptX AW2310 23" 1920x1080 with 3D Vision
Acer H5360 720p Projector with 3D Vision
ONKYO HT-S5300 7.1 Sound System
Logitech G19 Keyboard, G9 Mouse, G25 Wheel
Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
I was reading every review/article/benchmark I could find before buying this, and they all said the same story: 3D vision will more than cut your frames in half. It only makes sense, really, I was expecting it. Any game I want to use this on, I'm averaging 100-200fps in 2D, and I was willing to accept playing with an effective 30-60fps respectively. I've just installed it tonight with my new Asus 120hz...
In COD:BO I went from avg 120fps in full servers to 15-20fps tops.
In TF2 I went from usually ~150-200fps to no more than 40 at the best of times in empty servers, in the single digits at the worst times.
Hell, in CS:S I've been frame capped at 300, and with 3D Vision I'm lucky to hit 50.
Dropping video settings and resolution (drastically) hardly seems to make a change in these results.
L4D seems to work just fine (downright sexy actually), and I average 50-60fps, but I wonder if thats because its a less stressful game. I want to love this, I really do, but I cant play shooters like this haha.
Also, does the nvidia crosshair affect fps? I swear, during some testing I literally dropped 10fps when I toggled it, and they didn't come back up when I turned it off.
I'm running:
i7 920 @ 3.4ghz
6GB ddr3
120gb SSD as my OS/App drive
Asus GTX 285 1gb
Win7 64bit
I know you'll jump all over my vid card, but the card hardly came out a year and a half ago. I'm hoping you're not gonna tell me to run out and buy a $500 card because if so this [b]SHOULD HAVE[/b] been published somewhere as "recommended requirements" as a warning. Not only that, but my card is no longer being manufactured so finding a card to SLI is a little difficult. My issue isn't necessarily the fps themselves anyways, my issue is whether or not 3D Vision should be hammering my performance a good 80% like it is when I've heard differently. I've tried every combination of settings, and nothing even changes my results haha. Lower res, lower gfx, with and without AA/AF... speaking of which, the software forces vsync right? Even with 3D off my games ALL cap at 120fps now. I have double checked that the vsync settings in both the nv control panel and the game are OFF but I'm still capped.
I guess I should just draw out my questions:
1) Given my hardware, should 3D Vision be causing 75%-90% performance drops?
2) If it [i]shouldn't[/i] be, would you think its some settings of mine, lack of hardware umph, or something out of my hands entirely?
3) Has anyone heard of your 2D frames being capped at 120 even after disabling 3D Vision?
4) If it [i]really, really, really[/i] is just my video card, why in the world would you publish "supported" cards on the site without any "recommended" section?
Its beautiful when it works, but it doesn't.
-ps- 120hz monitor is awesome.
I was reading every review/article/benchmark I could find before buying this, and they all said the same story: 3D vision will more than cut your frames in half. It only makes sense, really, I was expecting it. Any game I want to use this on, I'm averaging 100-200fps in 2D, and I was willing to accept playing with an effective 30-60fps respectively. I've just installed it tonight with my new Asus 120hz...
In COD:BO I went from avg 120fps in full servers to 15-20fps tops.
In TF2 I went from usually ~150-200fps to no more than 40 at the best of times in empty servers, in the single digits at the worst times.
Hell, in CS:S I've been frame capped at 300, and with 3D Vision I'm lucky to hit 50.
Dropping video settings and resolution (drastically) hardly seems to make a change in these results.
L4D seems to work just fine (downright sexy actually), and I average 50-60fps, but I wonder if thats because its a less stressful game. I want to love this, I really do, but I cant play shooters like this haha.
Also, does the nvidia crosshair affect fps? I swear, during some testing I literally dropped 10fps when I toggled it, and they didn't come back up when I turned it off.
I'm running:
i7 920 @ 3.4ghz
6GB ddr3
120gb SSD as my OS/App drive
Asus GTX 285 1gb
Win7 64bit
I know you'll jump all over my vid card, but the card hardly came out a year and a half ago. I'm hoping you're not gonna tell me to run out and buy a $500 card because if so this SHOULD HAVE been published somewhere as "recommended requirements" as a warning. Not only that, but my card is no longer being manufactured so finding a card to SLI is a little difficult. My issue isn't necessarily the fps themselves anyways, my issue is whether or not 3D Vision should be hammering my performance a good 80% like it is when I've heard differently. I've tried every combination of settings, and nothing even changes my results haha. Lower res, lower gfx, with and without AA/AF... speaking of which, the software forces vsync right? Even with 3D off my games ALL cap at 120fps now. I have double checked that the vsync settings in both the nv control panel and the game are OFF but I'm still capped.
I guess I should just draw out my questions:
1) Given my hardware, should 3D Vision be causing 75%-90% performance drops?
2) If it shouldn't be, would you think its some settings of mine, lack of hardware umph, or something out of my hands entirely?
3) Has anyone heard of your 2D frames being capped at 120 even after disabling 3D Vision?
4) If it really, really, really is just my video card, why in the world would you publish "supported" cards on the site without any "recommended" section?
Its beautiful when it works, but it doesn't.
-ps- 120hz monitor is awesome.
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16313/4
It seems in some games (L4D), he's seeing drastic results with SLI, and in other games (Crysis) there's no benefit at all. Is there a hardware related reason for this, like memory/bandwidth, or does it come down to the game engines and their respective 3D profiles?
http://techreport.com/articles.x/16313/4
It seems in some games (L4D), he's seeing drastic results with SLI, and in other games (Crysis) there's no benefit at all. Is there a hardware related reason for this, like memory/bandwidth, or does it come down to the game engines and their respective 3D profiles?
The other thing that I noticed affecting performance the most for me was AA... I tried it at like 8 AA but it ran choppy.. After setting it to 4 AA things works fine. I have a gtx 280
Though I heard that 50- 80 percent decrease is common. 50 is good for games since it has to basically do double the work... So Half fps is expected. Though some games arn't optimized for 3d as well as others so it can get as bad as an 80% decrease.. It really just depends on the game, and what you are running..
No need to raise minimal specs like you suggest. You can still run 3d movies, photo's and some games with what you and I have.. Just don't expect to play the latest and greatest with it... Heck I wouldn't expect to play the latest and greatest games out there with my card, even with 3d turned off.
The other thing that I noticed affecting performance the most for me was AA... I tried it at like 8 AA but it ran choppy.. After setting it to 4 AA things works fine. I have a gtx 280
Though I heard that 50- 80 percent decrease is common. 50 is good for games since it has to basically do double the work... So Half fps is expected. Though some games arn't optimized for 3d as well as others so it can get as bad as an 80% decrease.. It really just depends on the game, and what you are running..
No need to raise minimal specs like you suggest. You can still run 3d movies, photo's and some games with what you and I have.. Just don't expect to play the latest and greatest with it... Heck I wouldn't expect to play the latest and greatest games out there with my card, even with 3d turned off.
There are plenty of games a few years old to play in 3d right now.... Play batman AA.. It's great.....
In 2 or 4 years upgrade your system... Then play all the games that are out now... Not only will your system be advanced enough to handle them, since the games would have been out for a few years, they will be much cheaper to purchase...
Unless you are the type of person that NEEDS to buy a game when it first comes out and always be on top of it.... I say give it time... I usually only play games that are 1-3 years older from the time I get a computer.. This ensures that my pc will always be able to be powerful enough to run it and games will be cheap enough to buy...
If there is a game you must have, write it down so you don't forget it in a year or two....
There are plenty of games a few years old to play in 3d right now.... Play batman AA.. It's great.....
In 2 or 4 years upgrade your system... Then play all the games that are out now... Not only will your system be advanced enough to handle them, since the games would have been out for a few years, they will be much cheaper to purchase...
Unless you are the type of person that NEEDS to buy a game when it first comes out and always be on top of it.... I say give it time... I usually only play games that are 1-3 years older from the time I get a computer.. This ensures that my pc will always be able to be powerful enough to run it and games will be cheap enough to buy...
If there is a game you must have, write it down so you don't forget it in a year or two....
overclock cpu/gpu.
(optional) For each game, choose its "2D/3D profile" in nvidia control panel before playing.
OR upgrade to 580 or wait for the upcoming dual gpu card (595?).
Is 1GB ram (gtx285) enough for 3D ??
Skip games like metro2033 for now.
L4D is a "very low stress" dx9 game compared to those other games. By the way, 100+ fps is not needed on a 60/120Hz monitor.
overclock cpu/gpu.
(optional) For each game, choose its "2D/3D profile" in nvidia control panel before playing.
OR upgrade to 580 or wait for the upcoming dual gpu card (595?).
Is 1GB ram (gtx285) enough for 3D ??
Skip games like metro2033 for now.
L4D is a "very low stress" dx9 game compared to those other games. By the way, 100+ fps is not needed on a 60/120Hz monitor.
Thief 1/2/gold in 3D
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/523535/3d-vision/thief-1-2-and-system-shock-2-perfect-3d-with-unofficial-patch-1-19
http://photos.3dvisionlive.com/Partol/album/509eb580a3e067153c000020/
[Acer GD245HQ - 1920x1080 120Hz] [Nvidia 3D Vision]
[MSI H81M-P33 with Pentium G3258 @ 4.4GHz and Zalman CNPS5X}[Transcend 2x2GB DDR3]
[Asus GTX 750 Ti @ 1350MHz] [Intel SSD 330 - 240GB]
[Creative Titanium HD + Beyerdynamic DT 880 (250ohm) headphones] [Windows 7 64bit]
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
AsRock X58 Extreme6 mobo
Intel Core-i7 950 @ 4ghz
12gb Corsair Dominator DDR3 1600
ASUS DirectCU II GTX 780 3gb
Corsair TX 950w PSU
NZXT Phantom Red/Black Case
3d Vision 1 w/ Samsung 2233rz Monitor
3d Vision 2 w/ ASUS VG278HE Monitor
Hey bud, I also use a single GTX 285.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
[/quote]
Thx Acid, this is good information, and at least I know its not unique to me. People keep saying COD:BO is new so its stressful, and I have to remind them that same engine has been used for years haha.
Firestone, although I appreciate your input too, you should realize that waiting 2 years to buy a game for 3D is ridiculous when its smooth as butter in 2D today lol. I understand what you mean, but waiting two years to buy a multiplayer game makes no sense. Also, dont knock your 280, its a good card and can play any game today... if not in 3D anyways.
100+ fps might not be required Partol, but it is [i]desired[/i]. Even on a 60hz monitor, there's a noticeable difference between 60fps and 120fps, especially on hair-trigger shooters.
Hey bud, I also use a single GTX 285.
Ok well first of all, COD:BO is horribly unoptimized and has a 70%+ framedrop in 3d. Shouldn't happen, graphics aren't any better than previous COD games, but just a crapty port.
Second, Valve games specifically use the nvidia crosshair driver to make the game's crosshiar dynamic. TF2, HL2, etc, all suffer from horrid frame drop when dynamic crosshair is enabled. Start the games again and hit ctrl-f12 to turn them off... you'll see solid 60fps in those games on your single gtx285. Worked for me. To compensate for the 2d crosshair use low depth/high convergence (whatever works for YOU) and it'll still look good and you'll still be able to aim.
So, it's NOT your video card. I'm using the same thing and really the only game I have problems with is Black Ops.
edit: oh and btw, I run metro 2033 on high (not highest) settings at a perfectly playable 30fps on my single 285. Not bad at all really.
Thx Acid, this is good information, and at least I know its not unique to me. People keep saying COD:BO is new so its stressful, and I have to remind them that same engine has been used for years haha.
Firestone, although I appreciate your input too, you should realize that waiting 2 years to buy a game for 3D is ridiculous when its smooth as butter in 2D today lol. I understand what you mean, but waiting two years to buy a multiplayer game makes no sense. Also, dont knock your 280, its a good card and can play any game today... if not in 3D anyways.
100+ fps might not be required Partol, but it is desired. Even on a 60hz monitor, there's a noticeable difference between 60fps and 120fps, especially on hair-trigger shooters.
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution!
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution!
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
Intel i7-4770k
EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC
ASRock Z87 Extreme4
8GB DDR3, 240GB Intel SSD, 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Siedon 120M Liquid Cooling
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" 2560x1600
Alienware OptX AW2310 23" 1920x1080 with 3D Vision
Acer H5360 720p Projector with 3D Vision
ONKYO HT-S5300 7.1 Sound System
Logitech G19 Keyboard, G9 Mouse, G25 Wheel
Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
OP, you're killing me here!
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution!
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
[/quote]
Resolution has been 1080p, old monitor and new. I'm going to guess you're right on the vram, unfortunately I'm a poor single guy working through college so upgrading again will have to wait. Maybe one of those rumored 595's in a year or so. Its a shame, cuz the 285 is still handling everything like a champ in 2D. I'd be upgrading purely for 3D alone, and at that point a $150 3D Vision purchase ends up actually costing closer to a grand between the qualified monitor, 3D kit, and a graphics solution that doesnt choke up. Believe me, if purely lowering my graphics gave me more fps I wouldnt be here, I'd be enjoying 3D games in lower resolutions lol.
Its like a bait to buy more nvidia products... if that makes sense? I mean, I have nothing against my nvidia products and would still probably buy in the future anyways, but it does purturb me that I'm literally trapped into a future nvidia card purchase whether I intended to or not.
I shouldn't be upset about it, its all things I probably would have bought anyways, and things I should have thought about prior to purchase. What I'm upset about though is that my future choices, unbeknownst to me beforehand, have been limited... if I want my 3D purchase to see any good use anyways. I had assumed my GTX 285 would do the job, and that I would be able to make my own choice later if I wanted to continue with an nVidia upgrade, but I guess I'm the fool for assuming.
On the upside, its not particularly like I've lost any money. The 3D kit can be set aside for future use when I'm able to. The monitor is great by itself anyways. I also need to play with crosshair settings like Acid suggested, I play mostly valve games so it could still turn out alright.
OP, you're killing me here!
The bottleneck is almost certainly your graphics card, but we can't figure that because you wrote all that good information on your specs and frame rates but forgot to tell us one of the most critical parts, the resolution!
What resolution were you gaming at before 3D when you had the good rates? What resolution are you at now on the Acer?
My gut feeling without that information would be that a 285 should be able to do 3D fairly well (I've played some 3D on a 280 just fine), but not at the same resolution or settings as 400/500 series card. You should have plenty of CPU and RAM for this setup. Keep in mind that with 3D having twice the effective resolution, the 1GB VRAM could bottleneck some games pretty badly as they try to swap information in and out of that buffer from the hard drive.
Resolution has been 1080p, old monitor and new. I'm going to guess you're right on the vram, unfortunately I'm a poor single guy working through college so upgrading again will have to wait. Maybe one of those rumored 595's in a year or so. Its a shame, cuz the 285 is still handling everything like a champ in 2D. I'd be upgrading purely for 3D alone, and at that point a $150 3D Vision purchase ends up actually costing closer to a grand between the qualified monitor, 3D kit, and a graphics solution that doesnt choke up. Believe me, if purely lowering my graphics gave me more fps I wouldnt be here, I'd be enjoying 3D games in lower resolutions lol.
Its like a bait to buy more nvidia products... if that makes sense? I mean, I have nothing against my nvidia products and would still probably buy in the future anyways, but it does purturb me that I'm literally trapped into a future nvidia card purchase whether I intended to or not.
I shouldn't be upset about it, its all things I probably would have bought anyways, and things I should have thought about prior to purchase. What I'm upset about though is that my future choices, unbeknownst to me beforehand, have been limited... if I want my 3D purchase to see any good use anyways. I had assumed my GTX 285 would do the job, and that I would be able to make my own choice later if I wanted to continue with an nVidia upgrade, but I guess I'm the fool for assuming.
On the upside, its not particularly like I've lost any money. The 3D kit can be set aside for future use when I'm able to. The monitor is great by itself anyways. I also need to play with crosshair settings like Acid suggested, I play mostly valve games so it could still turn out alright.
Nevertheless, there is hope with your current card. As others have said, definitely make sure you turn off any AA options. Check in the game's options as well as the Nvidia control panel to make sure it is not overriding. If this still doesn't do it, try dropping down to 720p resolutions. If that still doesn't work, then there is probably something strange going on as 720p x 2 is actually less pixels than 1080p.
Nevertheless, there is hope with your current card. As others have said, definitely make sure you turn off any AA options. Check in the game's options as well as the Nvidia control panel to make sure it is not overriding. If this still doesn't do it, try dropping down to 720p resolutions. If that still doesn't work, then there is probably something strange going on as 720p x 2 is actually less pixels than 1080p.
Intel i7-4770k
EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC
ASRock Z87 Extreme4
8GB DDR3, 240GB Intel SSD, 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Siedon 120M Liquid Cooling
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" 2560x1600
Alienware OptX AW2310 23" 1920x1080 with 3D Vision
Acer H5360 720p Projector with 3D Vision
ONKYO HT-S5300 7.1 Sound System
Logitech G19 Keyboard, G9 Mouse, G25 Wheel
Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals
Keep in mind you are now trying to render 4.14 Megapixels per frame, which is actually more pixels than 2560x1600 resolution. This is not Nvidia's fault, you just need to get used to looking at the 2560x1600 benchmarks instead of the 1920x1080 benchmarks to see what games you can run from now on!
[/quote]
4.14 JIGGAWATTS?!?
That actually makes a lot of sense, CURSE YOU MATH! Thx for the enlightenment anyways.
Keep in mind you are now trying to render 4.14 Megapixels per frame, which is actually more pixels than 2560x1600 resolution. This is not Nvidia's fault, you just need to get used to looking at the 2560x1600 benchmarks instead of the 1920x1080 benchmarks to see what games you can run from now on!
4.14 JIGGAWATTS?!?
That actually makes a lot of sense, CURSE YOU MATH! Thx for the enlightenment anyways.
lmao
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV_Dh2zvwLI
lmao
That would be hard... really hard. Not everyone is playing shooters online, you know. Lots of games work fine at 20fps. There are games out there that might work in S3D with just an 8800 card.
That would be hard... really hard. Not everyone is playing shooters online, you know. Lots of games work fine at 20fps. There are games out there that might work in S3D with just an 8800 card.
How about:
"For the smoothest 3D experience possible, nVidia recommends the (card name here) or better"
How about:
"For the smoothest 3D experience possible, nVidia recommends the (card name here) or better"
Intel i7-4770k
EVGA GTX 780 Ti SC
ASRock Z87 Extreme4
8GB DDR3, 240GB Intel SSD, 3TB HDD
Cooler Master Siedon 120M Liquid Cooling
Dell 3007WFP-HC 30" 2560x1600
Alienware OptX AW2310 23" 1920x1080 with 3D Vision
Acer H5360 720p Projector with 3D Vision
ONKYO HT-S5300 7.1 Sound System
Logitech G19 Keyboard, G9 Mouse, G25 Wheel
Saitek X52 Pro and Rudder Pedals