It's hardly surprising though is it? It's effectively rendering 6x as much info as a single screen without 3D.
What, just, what, the two different numbers shown are with 3d and without.
I'm not actually 100% sure if the framerate literally halfs, the idea is the glasses actually cut your effective framerate in half, but the screen is supposed to show the same number of frames.
IE if a game in non 3d mode is giving 120fps, in 3d mode its STILL showing 120fps, but each alternate frame is slightly offset, and the GLASSES and not the screen stop your eye seeing every alternate frame. So the FPS is still 120fps, but each eye is only seeing 60fps.
Now I'm not sure if in a framerate counter this will still show up as 120fps, or through some quirk show up at 60fps.
But the listed numbers are both with the same screen setup, blue without 3d on, red with 3d on. Theres no situation where one framerate compared to another is 6x the resolution, not one.
Now on 1680x1050, the perfect 3d should give IDENTICAL framerate as without 3d on, just your eye's should be seeing half of the frames, but your other eye is supposed to show the other half.
Now I'd imagine some loss without question as it sinks up frames so nothing funky is going on with left eye/right eye alternating.
But I guess the idea is losing 60% of your fps to get 3d, isn't great.
IN surround at the lower res, you should be able to get 30fps both in AND out of 3d, its only the glasses making one eye see half the frames. So its certainly losing a heck of a lot of power doing 3d.
The biggest issue would be this, the glasses won't work well with surround, because they aren't melded to your eyeballs but a little away from your face. Any glasses user will tell you glasses compared to contact lenses the biggest difference is your peripheral vision and thats half the point of the "surround" part of this. If half the left and right screen is blocked by the glasses frames, then whats the point. Also being LCD's in the glasses frames I've heard also that they don't let in light from tight angles due to alignment, which means quite possibly even the bits of the left/right screen you can see will be next to impossible to see due to the angle which they sit to the glasses.
Meh, their plain old surround without 3d, the numbers don't look terrible, 77fps at 1680x1050, and 30fps for 3x that res is not at all bad, keeping in mind the 77fps looks a tad cpu limited(as a drop to only 70 at 1920x1200 is far smaller than you'd expect at gpu limits). The hit from going from any res/screen setup, to the same setup in 3d is pretty terrible though.
Considering that a single 1680x1050 goes from 77fps which is more than playable, to 36fps, which, well, isn't, then 3d isn't particularly good.
however, we'll have to wait for some proper reviews by the better sites.
