• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Is there a 3D Vision/surround review on the GTX 480 / 470?

Retow

Retow

Retow

Associate
Joined
11 Jul 2003
Posts
66
Hi Guys,
I'm having trouble finding any actual figures demonstrating the performance of the new cards with stereo/surround enabled despite there being an obvious product focus on its Stereo Vision et. Surround feature.
Can anyone point me in the right direction or know of a site with one incoming?

The only reason I ask is 3D Vision was my main motivation to purchase the 480 and forego the ATI cards (which I appreciate are very capable) anyway right now I'm going in blind. I would find it less than satisfying if when its delivered I find the results aren't comparable to the existing dual card 295 or dedicated SLi setup for example having put up with my current GTX280 being brought to its knees in most scenarios.

Thanks in advance..
 
i saw one very limited section of a page with 16xaa in 3dvision and thats it. No proper actual no/2xaa with comparison across the board. If i ever get a fermi i'll be sure to do one!
 
you may have to wait for more cards out there. Basically, take the framerate of the game and half it, that's the performance you will get as it renders a frame for each eye. Make sure you have one of the newer 3d monitors (the acer or the alienware) as ghosting is bad on the first gen ones.
 
I thought that might be the case but wondered if anyone had seen anything on an international website from our enterprising Chinese/Russian cousins for example..

Right now I have the Samsung 2233RZ which I'm happy with along with the 3D vision kit and its as good as it could have been for an early adopter however rightly performance did take quite a hit when it was enabled in later games with my single GTX 280. From all the PR and marketing hype I imagined the 400 series to be the saviour of stereo gaming on a single card yet I was surprised when none of the initial launch reviews covered it in any detail opting instead for one paragraph along the lines of "Yes it is a feature, and now on 3 monitors.... moving on"

In my experience halving the frame-rate isn't always true some are more efficient than others, that said looking at the early performance data it bodes well as the resolution I'm limited to (1680) has better results than say a 285 for example.

I suppose I'm expecting some leaps to be made in terms of efficiency and capability of the chip seeing as though the 480 has so much under the bonnet if that's the case then i guess ill have to hope some reviewers take the time to note performance on this niche or just wait until my card arrives. :rolleyes:
 
take into account you will need 2 cards for surround 3d. Each card can only support upto 2 displays. so you're talking about £800 worth of graphics card + £600 of monitors.
 
ha-ha

Well I'm less interested in the surround functionality more the stereo element but they seem to go hand in hand which is why I included it in the original question after all I've already invested in one 480 and I'm not completely at peace with that yet so one step at a time.
 
Mr Fujisawa said:
you may have to wait for more cards out there. Basically, take the framerate of the game and half it, that's the performance you will get as it renders a frame for each eye. Make sure you have one of the newer 3d monitors (the acer or the alienware) as ghosting is bad on the first gen ones.
Click to expand...

It doesn't halve the fps. Rendering 1 frame for each eye is true but remember, it has already rendered the frame, it just displays it again slightly offset. 15% - 20% hit at the most which is easily recouped because 3D gives free AA. 2aa is plenty when using 3D Vision!
 
no_1_dave said:
It doesn't halve the fps. Rendering 1 frame for each eye is true but remember, it has already rendered the frame, it just displays it again slightly offset. 15% - 20% hit at the most which is easily recouped because 3D gives free AA. 2aa is plenty when using 3D Vision!
Click to expand...

It's definitely worse than 20%! See below. Obviously the max will only be 60 on 3d vision vs 120fps in 2d, but the minimum frame rates are telling

cod4-1600-bar.jpg

farcry2-1600-bar.jpg

left4dead-1600-bar.jpg
 
Last edited:
no_1_dave said:
It doesn't halve the fps. Rendering 1 frame for each eye is true but remember, it has already rendered the frame, it just displays it again slightly offset. 15% - 20% hit at the most which is easily recouped because 3D gives free AA. 2aa is plenty when using 3D Vision!
Click to expand...

That's not quite how it works.

It doesn't render one image then offset it.

It actually renders two images from slightly different angles which results in quite a large performance hit.

Add in surround gaming and games are gonna crawl.

For a set up that'll be at least £1100, it's not great.

To the op, there are no benchmarks of 3D Vision Surround because it's currently not supported in the released drivers.
 
I think if it worked, 3d vision surround on three 1080p 120hz monitors would be about as close as we can get to 'jacking in' matrix style,
why would you ever leave the house...
maybe to get said GF...:(

ha!
 
3t3P said:
I think if it worked, 3d vision surround on three 1080p 120hz monitors would be about as close as we can get to 'jacking in' matrix style,
why would you ever leave the house...
maybe to get said GF...:(

ha!
Click to expand...

I think people moved faster than 10FPS in the matrix :D :cool:
 
Lol are those 3 graphs credible? Thats a seriously harsh performance hit for something Nvidia are trying to sell to us :O

I wonder do you need the high resolution for it or is that purely the users choice (ie no silly res lock on it)
 
James J said:
Lol are those 3 graphs credible? Thats a seriously harsh performance hit for something Nvidia are trying to sell to us :O

I wonder do you need the high resolution for it or is that purely the users choice (ie no silly res lock on it)
Click to expand...

It has to be the max rez of the monitor, so 1650 on the old ones and 1920 on the new ones. Yes the hit is harsh because it's rendering twice as much. But the effect is great . TBH, its a reason to get SLI...
 
3D gaming is really awesome, if you have the money and the time to game then its highly recommended. I just go round to a friends house when I have time.

I'm not sure on the exact implementation Nvidia have but a naive solution would render at half the speed. However, with clever drivers the reduction could be decreased significantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom