-
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.
Any benchmarks on nvidia cards running 3d?
- Thread starter marc512
- Start date
You can run nVidia 3D on any card above a 8800.
To run their new 3D surround (3 monitors + 3D) you require 2 cards in SLi or a dualcore gpu (9800 GX2 or 295).
The driver for this haven't been released yet so benchmarks are topsecret / non existant
To run their new 3D surround (3 monitors + 3D) you require 2 cards in SLi or a dualcore gpu (9800 GX2 or 295).
The driver for this haven't been released yet so benchmarks are topsecret / non existant
not just for 3d surround. surely there will be a guy out there with something like 295`s in SLI on 1 3d monitor going through each game testing the difference between 3d and 2d.
Well to give you an idea of what the current glut of 3D tech is actually doing. There are two ways to produce a 3D effect with the current NVIDIA 3D drivers.
The first is Anaglyph (red/blue image overlay) and the second is active stereo.
With Anaglyph you effectively take an image and apply two "filters" to it (think changing the colour in a paint package) then offset the two images appropriately (as well as doing a bit of warping in some cases). Due to optimizations in the way 3D APIs (DirectX, OpenGL etc) work, youdont actually have to render the same image twice with different colours, but you do have to do extra work than if you were just showing it once, so this may mean you get around 25% slowdown (i.e. if you were running at 30 FPS you will now be running at around 22.5 FPS).
Active (and passive) stereo is very different, it involves rendering the same 3D scene from two slightly different perspectives (i.e. the perspectives of your two eyes!) so ultimately there can't be much if any clever re-use of data etc. So while the slowdown isn't normally a solid 50%, it'll be close (slight improvements due to data already being in the cards memory etc.) So if you were running at 30FPS then, you will likely be running at around 15 +/- 2 or 3FPS.
I should say those numbers are pure estimates and i'm sure the NVIDIA 3D driver system does a few clever things, but ultimately they can't be doing anything too radically different from what I have put above.
So yeah, if you are using "proper" stereo (i.e. the one that needs 120Hz screens and proper active polarising glasses) and you only have 1 GPU then inevitably you will see a near 50% slowdown, whereas if you have 2 GPUs, assuming things have been well programmed (which I'm guessing they currently haven't been) in theory you could do proper active stereo with little to no slow down other than that of the overhead of using multiple cards.
I should say, I don't know the exact specifics of NVIDIAs implementation, I have just implemented a few stereo renderers over the past few months, mainly in OpenGL, and so am fairly clued up on the technicalities, and I really can't imagine NVIDIAs being radically different.
The first is Anaglyph (red/blue image overlay) and the second is active stereo.
With Anaglyph you effectively take an image and apply two "filters" to it (think changing the colour in a paint package) then offset the two images appropriately (as well as doing a bit of warping in some cases). Due to optimizations in the way 3D APIs (DirectX, OpenGL etc) work, youdont actually have to render the same image twice with different colours, but you do have to do extra work than if you were just showing it once, so this may mean you get around 25% slowdown (i.e. if you were running at 30 FPS you will now be running at around 22.5 FPS).
Active (and passive) stereo is very different, it involves rendering the same 3D scene from two slightly different perspectives (i.e. the perspectives of your two eyes!) so ultimately there can't be much if any clever re-use of data etc. So while the slowdown isn't normally a solid 50%, it'll be close (slight improvements due to data already being in the cards memory etc.) So if you were running at 30FPS then, you will likely be running at around 15 +/- 2 or 3FPS.
I should say those numbers are pure estimates and i'm sure the NVIDIA 3D driver system does a few clever things, but ultimately they can't be doing anything too radically different from what I have put above.
So yeah, if you are using "proper" stereo (i.e. the one that needs 120Hz screens and proper active polarising glasses) and you only have 1 GPU then inevitably you will see a near 50% slowdown, whereas if you have 2 GPUs, assuming things have been well programmed (which I'm guessing they currently haven't been) in theory you could do proper active stereo with little to no slow down other than that of the overhead of using multiple cards.
I should say, I don't know the exact specifics of NVIDIAs implementation, I have just implemented a few stereo renderers over the past few months, mainly in OpenGL, and so am fairly clued up on the technicalities, and I really can't imagine NVIDIAs being radically different.
Manic Man is right. Slowdown is 50% or more.
Hence, although I think 3d will be good in future, neither Nvidia or ATI have got cards powerful to do it justice atm and it will be next generation before it has wide appeal.
After all, having two top end cards just to get decent framerates on a 22" screen is not a cheap option.
Oh and some benchmarks are here although things may have improved as drivers have matured:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/889/6/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/nvidia-geforce-3d-vision-review/10
Some user results here with gtx480 and gtx480 in sli with and without 3d
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=164743
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=158918
Some games seem to take a bigger hit than 50% eg RE5
If fact, at 1080p res, i'd be a bit gutted that my gtx 480 in SLI can only manage 49 fps in RE5 and a paultry 22 fps in just cause 2 with 3d switched on.
Hence, although I think 3d will be good in future, neither Nvidia or ATI have got cards powerful to do it justice atm and it will be next generation before it has wide appeal.
After all, having two top end cards just to get decent framerates on a 22" screen is not a cheap option.
Oh and some benchmarks are here although things may have improved as drivers have matured:
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/889/6/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/nvidia-geforce-3d-vision-review/10
Some user results here with gtx480 and gtx480 in sli with and without 3d
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=164743
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=158918
Some games seem to take a bigger hit than 50% eg RE5
If fact, at 1080p res, i'd be a bit gutted that my gtx 480 in SLI can only manage 49 fps in RE5 and a paultry 22 fps in just cause 2 with 3d switched on.
Last edited:
I'll take your word for it since I haven't got one.
But on a serious note, my point is if you are only getting 60 fps with 3d off and then 20 to 30fps with it on in some games, then we don't have a card powerful enough yet for 3d in everything unless you get two cards.
Next gen is needed just like tessellation.
With my GTX260 SLI setup at 1680x res I've never run into any scenes where it didn't feel smooth with 3D Vision in any of the games I've tried including most of the recent games... tho personally I don't find I can use 3D Vision for prolonged gaming and quite a few games simply play better without.
This ^^, lower framerates in 3D vision somehow doesn't seem to effect gameplay as much as it does without it.
For example Just Cause 2 appears to run smoothly with framerates in the 30-50 fps with 3D vision enabled, whereas without it you'd notice the framerate hit more, it's a strange phenomenon.
In fact the only game I've had to turn a few settings down in is Metro 2033. This is running all my games at my monitors native res of 1920x1080 too.
That's not *too* surprising, the effect of overlaying 2 near identical images will have a similar effect to that of low AA, albeit an unintended one.
3D vision is fine on current hardware, only ATI lovers say otherwise or people without a clue. Not real people who have it & use it.
3D vision worked perfectly on my old 275 and now works even better on my 470.
All games run very well in 3D, with all settings maxed at 1680 x 1050. AA isnt required as 3D gives about the equivalent of 4AA on its own. Metro is the only game I can not max in 3D with my 470. SLI is not needed unless you want to use 3D surround.
My 470 plays games in 3D faster then my 275 played them in 2D!
3D vision worked perfectly on my old 275 and now works even better on my 470.
All games run very well in 3D, with all settings maxed at 1680 x 1050. AA isnt required as 3D gives about the equivalent of 4AA on its own. Metro is the only game I can not max in 3D with my 470. SLI is not needed unless you want to use 3D surround.
My 470 plays games in 3D faster then my 275 played them in 2D!
I would disagree a bit on the AA aspect, I certainly noticed some jaggies with it off entirely - at best it was equivalent to 2x AA and not always that good, tho I could get away with much lower levels of AA than I needed in non-stereo 3D - 2x AA in 3D Vision is probably closish to 4x AA normally.
1680 x 1050 is a low res
3d is 2xaa not 4xaa
sli is needed if 1920 x 1200 or greater in certain games
Nvidia fanboi!
says someone who admits he's never used it
I've used it on my friends rig which I overclocked for him. i7 @ 4Ghz 12gb DDR3 GTX 295, Alienware OptXTM AW2310 3D. We tried a LOT of games and my friend continues in trying his game collection out with this new addition to his gaming rig.
All games do NOT run very well at the settings you would use without 3D. He has a card that is double the power of yours (old card gtx 275 edit*) yet you see no problem. Well I have a problem with your view as it does not match up with me personally or my friend.
"3D is fine on current hardware" lol
. Go crank up BFBC2 on the settings you use without 3D and then come back and type some lies to me if you are not man enough to admit you are wrong. Just Cause 2 is a major problem also as if you turn GPGPU on for the water effects it renders SLi null and void and that already takes a hit on FPS. So now try turn on 3D with SLi off and running GPGPU water effects . Again, another instance where it shows you the limitation. This is just two instances which show your post to be nothing but flame bait. This is from me who actually loved playing with it and from my friend who loves his new 3D environment. Even he admits he needs SLi'D GTX 480s to run this how he wants and this is with already owning the GTX 295.So in short. Me, My friend and the review sites are all AMD fan boys?. Haha next you'll be telling me the queen is one of the lizard people and that David Icke told you this so it's 100% factual.
Last edited: