Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,313
60hz = max 60 fps.
-
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.
Nvidia 3D vision, worth it? Questions...
- Thread starter no_1_dave
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,210
- Location
- Billericay, UK
Given how crap the currant 120hz monitors are it's not worth it and even if 120hz screens were up to scratch the price/benefit ratio just doesn't add up in the long run. Your better off spending your money on a better video card or better monitor like the Dell U2410 Ultrahsharp which puts those frankly awful 120hz screens to shame.
No it does not.
In the case of 3D 60Hz is a problem.
Refresh rate is the maximum the monitor will update per second, frame rate can be as high as it likes regardless if the display device can keep up unless V-sync is used.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,313
The current 120hz monitors have scored highly in reviews. Especially on the gaming side. Whilst monitors such as the Dell U2410 are great, they are not as good for gaming/3d. - whilst they would excel in high end photo work.
You are confused here. Frame rate is limited to the monitor refresh rate. If your monitor (regular lcd's) can only handle 60hz then the max fps they can do is 60fps. This is why some fps players still use crt monitors as they can handle a higher hz and thus a higher fps.
Im not confused.
The maximum FPS the monitor can display is limited by its Hz. that does not mean that the maximum FPS rendered by the gfx card connected to the display is also 60fps . its just that the 60hz monitor will display 1in2 frames at 120fps, 1n3 frames at 180fps.
How do you think the benchmarks graphs & FPS counters show more than 60fps rendered by the gfx card.
I have played games at 400 FPS on both my 21" CRT that i still have & on my 30" 60Hz LCD even tho i will only see 60FPS of that 400FPS rendered.
FPS Rendered is the gfx card, FPS that can be displayed is the Monitor.
Last edited:
You obviously do not know what you are talking about.
Just got the viewsonic screen and 3d vision.
The 3d vision is awesome. I love it. I showed my sister it the day i got it, she took the glasses off saying she didnt like it :s i asked her why, she told me because it unnatural haha.
When a game works well with it, it to me is a true step forward for games. I even think as big a step forward as the first 3dfx card upgrade i did.
When a game works ok its still very good, however you will see ghosting. This can be a bit destracting in some games.
The monitor itself is truely brilliant for gaming, it feels so smooth. I currently own the viewsonic and the Nec 24wmgx3. When it comes to games there is no comparison, the viewsonic beats it hands down. I wonder why people knock the 120hz monitor and recommend a graphics card upgrade as far better value. I see this as just as good an upgrade as gfx card as it makes my games twice as smooth as a top end gfx card with a 60hz monitor. Probably depends what gfx card you are currently running i suppose.
Phil.
The 3d vision is awesome. I love it. I showed my sister it the day i got it, she took the glasses off saying she didnt like it :s i asked her why, she told me because it unnatural haha.
When a game works well with it, it to me is a true step forward for games. I even think as big a step forward as the first 3dfx card upgrade i did.
When a game works ok its still very good, however you will see ghosting. This can be a bit destracting in some games.
The monitor itself is truely brilliant for gaming, it feels so smooth. I currently own the viewsonic and the Nec 24wmgx3. When it comes to games there is no comparison, the viewsonic beats it hands down. I wonder why people knock the 120hz monitor and recommend a graphics card upgrade as far better value. I see this as just as good an upgrade as gfx card as it makes my games twice as smooth as a top end gfx card with a 60hz monitor. Probably depends what gfx card you are currently running i suppose.
Phil.
Last edited:
If you have vsync off it will start drawing the new frame when ready at the current position - so if your generating 120fps you will have the data from more than 1 frame on screen... even at 60fps without vwait you can have the data from 2 seperate frames drawn which is were the tearing comes in.
The tearing effect tends to fluctuate a bit as to how noticeable it is - with certain timings - which you are more likely to hit with higher framerates - its reduced substantially making vsync off visually bareable.
The tearing effect tends to fluctuate a bit as to how noticeable it is - with certain timings - which you are more likely to hit with higher framerates - its reduced substantially making vsync off visually bareable.
I'm seriously considering this... Im going to purchase a Samsung SyncMaster T220 first... Im just wondering as I was mainly going to get this for when Battlefield Bad Company 2 comes out, but hearing the reviews on it not being the best for fps games.. will this differ towards Battlefield do you think or will it be the same with the corsshair planes ect?
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 1,549
It definetely is worth it.
I'm selling mine due to no use of it since I don't game anymore.
I'm selling mine due to no use of it since I don't game anymore.
I came across the Zalman Trimon 3d Monitors last night, has anyone here tried those out?
They use the nVidia Stereoscopic 3d drivers, but the monitor itself is only 60hz, and it also comes with its own glasses as well.
From the review's I read last night, they sound pretty decent, but I thought for stereoscopic 3d to work the screen had to be 120Hz??
Here is the review from tweaktown for these monitors.
I found another e-tailer selling the 19" one for £143, and the 22" for £228, which is quite a bit cheaper than the nVidia 3D vision and Samsung or Viewsonic 120Hz screens..
They use the nVidia Stereoscopic 3d drivers, but the monitor itself is only 60hz, and it also comes with its own glasses as well.
From the review's I read last night, they sound pretty decent, but I thought for stereoscopic 3d to work the screen had to be 120Hz??
Here is the review from tweaktown for these monitors.
I found another e-tailer selling the 19" one for £143, and the 22" for £228, which is quite a bit cheaper than the nVidia 3D vision and Samsung or Viewsonic 120Hz screens..
Does 3D Vision affect the performance much?
I've never had the pleasure in trying it out, but from what I've read online, it does sound like it would be a lot of fun, and now that Acer have released their 24" 120Hz monitor, I might think about treating myself to one in the new year.
I've never had the pleasure in trying it out, but from what I've read online, it does sound like it would be a lot of fun, and now that Acer have released their 24" 120Hz monitor, I might think about treating myself to one in the new year.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 1,313
The Zalman's are unfortunately are older end off line tech. And not as fully supported (they have there own drivers-not 3d vision). Whilst they do perform pretty well, The support is a limitation. Also they use interlacing so you get a 1680, 525 resolution.
As a rule as each regular frame is rendered from 2 different angles for each eye, you get approx 50% performance hit.
Indeed the 3D side of it all, is too much for me with fast pace first person online shooter games where you are constantly refocusing on different parts of the screen. It's doesn't cause problems, it just doesn't help. The 120 frames per second from the monitor in this situation is more beneficial. Tactical/RPG/Racing/Even single player fps games the 3D is great.
No offence but that's an ill informed comment IMO, stereoscopic vision sends different images to each eye, therefore directly hacking into the depth perception your brain does, so when it's working well it's as '3D' as the real world.
As for things 'just standing out more' you may be referring to old 3D movies which weren't filmed in 3D and just had some 3D layers added - with a game though the 3D seperation is derived directly from the z buffer depth of each pixel, so you get a full depth scale, it does not look like 2D billboards.
However there are (as always) issues - anything that has an incorrect z depth on the z buffer will be rendered at the wrong depth. For instance if you start adding screen space effects after the image is rendered (say motion blur or depth of field) they can break the 3D, or sometimes the sky or shadows will have incorrect depth info due to the way they're rendered and won't look correct. There's also issues with the screens not always being quick enough for 120 Hz shutter glasses which can lead to stereo crosstalk, which leads to you seeing double images of some objects (esp bad on a CRT).
If you already have an nvidia card and a 120hz screen, then it's not too expensive but if you're just buying the screen and/or nvidia card on top then it's way too expensive
There's an FPS drop too, it's the sorta thing you need to try yourself really
There's an FPS drop too, it's the sorta thing you need to try yourself really
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,210
- Location
- Billericay, UK
It's a shame you can't try before you buy. I was interested in 3D vision but after watching Avatar 3D I can't help but be underwhelmed by the whole so called 3D experience but it would still be interesting to see how this transfer into a gaming environment nether the less.