• 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.

Urgent advice

Tell me about it, i found a Gigabyte version for £350 somewhere online, 3 fans though, might be higher pitched, what i really want is fans that operate at a frequency i cannot hear, like gamma radiation or something :P
 
ALXAndy said:
2gb is enough.... For now. Sadly Nvidia (unlike AMD) use very expensive vram so the 4gb cards are horrifically priced :(

It's a tough one that's for sure. The vram on the AMD cards is far more alluring but then you are at the mercy of their drivers and tridef :(

I guess if you can afford the 4gb model then go for it. That, IMO, rules out the 590 completely as it only has 1.5gb which is on the precipice of being turned into a white elephant like my 295s.

Honestly, even quad SLI fully supported could not rescue it from being crippled by the lack of vram :(

I guess the next big test for GPUs will be GTA5. Depending on how that is coded (if it's like GTAIV then god help us !) it could be the next big test for modern GPUs.

Far Cry 3 runs perfectly smoothly on my 670 and I only see dips into the high 40s when it's got a lot going on.
Click to expand...

Is Farcry3 in 3D when you get high 40 FPS?
 
petapacket said:
Tell me about it, i found a Gigabyte version for £350 somewhere online, 3 fans though, might be higher pitched, what i really want is fans that operate at a frequency i cannot hear, like gamma radiation or something :P
Click to expand...

haha.

If that's a Windforce then they are perfectly well behaved sound wise. Just fire up EVGA precision and set them to acceptable levels. I don't even use a tuning app on my Jetstream I just leave the drivers to sort it out and haven't heard it spin up yet.

Not even sure what the temps are like, but that's what warranty is for :D
 
All this in mind, i then start to think i should wait for the second edition of Kepler cards, which will presumably be priced similarly as they did with 400's to 500's, extra performance for same price. I have resisted buying a Kepler until now.. Any change actually hinges on the quality and excitement i get out of the 3D experience. So i suppose i must wait until i visit the Overclocker's shop to try £dVision. Yes that was deliberate :P
 
Rusty0611 said:
What does this even mean?
Click to expand...

The issue is with the logical component of the hardware, the drivers, that manipulate DirectX to produce the visual symphony you could potentially experience, never mind what is produced as an end result of a games development company's exploits. It's lacking the homogenous approach that Nvidia adopted to get concrete results for 3D gaming.
 
I don't care what anyone says, for smooth 50 - 60 fps 3D, on high settings, on some of today's demanding games, you need SLI. Source: my own experience, my own rig is SLI 3GG 580's and a 27" Asus 3D Vision 2 monitor. I've tried it with one card and it doesn't cut the mustard.

I would never recommend anyone go into 3D vision with a one card set up. And yes, there are tonnes of lads who claim to be able to 'run it fine' with one card, but they are the ones who don't mind frame drops and medium settings.

However, I wouldn't recommend a 590 because of the low VRAM. If it was me, I would go for 670 SLI.

At the OP. Before you spend the money (assuming your monitor isn't already 3D), there are a lot more games out there that don't run well in 3D, than those that do. Helix mod helps a lot, but updates are slow, and the site doesn't cover all the big games.
 
Michaeljcox24 said:
I don't care what anyone says, for smooth 50 - 60 fps 3D, on high settings, on some of today's demanding games, you need SLI. Source: my own experience, my own rig is SLI 3GG 580's and a 27" Asus 3D Vision 2 monitor. I've tried it with one card and it doesn't cut the mustard.

I would never recommend anyone go into 3D vision with a one card set up. And yes, there are tonnes of lads who claim to be able to 'run it fine' with one card, but they are the ones who don't mind frame drops and medium settings.

However, I wouldn't recommend a 590 because of the low VRAM. If it was me, I would go for 670 SLI.

At the OP. Before you spend the money (assuming your monitor isn't already 3D), there are a lot more games out there that don't run well in 3D, than those that do. Helix mod helps a lot, but updates are slow, and the site doesn't cover all the big games.
Click to expand...

Sorry bud but I have to disagree here. I ran 3D games very well on one 680 and the same Asus VG278H monitor. Never had any slow downs or stutter.

I now run 3 of those monitors and agreed that 1 card isn't man enough for 5760*1080 but SLI is and they perform superbly.
 
I tend to agree with Michaeljcox24, even without first hand experience. Assuming the imperfect conversion algorithms and looking at the stats that rank these cards SLI seems requisite for all highest settings.

I think most games are deeply disappointing, i might be happy buying the setup so i can play metro another 4 times in 3D.
 
I need a pint of what Peta is drinking :p

petapacket said:
@Gregster - how do you rate the stereoscopic 3DVision experience, does it seem real?
Click to expand...

Far from real but in terms of 3D, I consider it the best 3D I have ever seen. Games like Trine/Trine 2/Tomb Raider/Crysis 2/Portal 2/Dirt 3/Alan Wake (to name but a few) are jaw droppingly good. The set up I use is 3DVision 2 with Lightboost monitors, which is brighter than 3DVision. This means I can play for hours without getting tired or strained eyes.

I have no idea of how it works (to any extent) but know that it does work and work well. Try before you buy is my advice.
 
Last edited:
petapacket said:
The issue is with the logical component of the hardware, the drivers, that manipulate DirectX to produce the visual symphony you could potentially experience, never mind what is produced as an end result of a games development company's exploits. It's lacking the homogenous approach that Nvidia adopted to get concrete results for 3D gaming.
Click to expand...

This sounds like one of those hallucinogenic scenes in Far Cry 3. :D
 
Last edited:
The problem you'll find is not many games support proper 3d without helix modding. Two of the biggest games this xmas, far cry and assassins creed dont work out of the box. The later doesnt even have a helix mod out for it yet.

So you end up having a 1080p setup with sli that when you bench in most games gives you stupidly crazy fps's of 100+.

When it works, and the devs designed it too, it's superb. I honestly cant play Arkham City in 2d anymore. Seriously. But games like that are very few and far between. If you need documented proof, just look at the list of 3d vision ready games and see how sparse it really is.
 
Peta. Think of it as looking into a cardboard box full of little model soldiers. It's not what I could call realistic, it's just really, really cool.

Watching bodies explode in Left 4 Dead with a pipe bomb for example is worth the price of admission alone. It's definitely something every one should experience at least once.
 
Cool. Thank you for all your perspectives, very useful. I need to try 3DVision before i get carried away choosing hardware. I'm about to watch Resident Evil - Afterlife in 3D from BluRay, i've seen it in 2D twice, hated it the first, enjoyed it a great deal the second when i tried to take it less seriously (being an utterly ridiculous film), this time i expect my balls poked out!
 
I own a pair of GTX 590s

They are not a serious option these days, they have low clocks compared to the 580s and overclocking is out of the question (unless you have a fire extinguisher handy) and as mentioned above there is the lack of vram.
 
ALXAndy said:
Tridef is pretty dire tbh. I got 14 FPS average out of Crysis (1) on full settings using an overclocked 7970. 3Dvision is far more mature and it shows. All I had to do was install a EDID over ride on my PC for my passive monitor (LG) and I was away. No more silly front end, no more bugs and far more compatible than Tridef.

Personally I can't use active 3D as the flicker causes me headaches so I went with a LG passive monitor which was nice and cheap (£130 or so with two pairs of glasses).

You'll also get more frames using passive as it's far easier on the GPU and vram over the 120hz active method. 3D isn't as strong though but provides more than enough splendor for the eyes :)

I mean really, if you're even thinking about 3D stay well away from AMD. Nvidia have (foolishly IMO) invested a lot of time and money into 3D and it shows. AMD have simply palmed the job off onto a company who can't even get BF3 working using their methods.

3Dvision is all tucked nicely into the drivers, and it's as simple as CTRL - T to get it running or to disable it.
Click to expand...

And yet there are people who use Tridef on these forums that say it runs perfectly fine.

You're also looking at it the wrong way. nVidia loves proprietary, AMD doesn't really do proprietary.

So rather than AMD "palming it off" for another company to sort out, they've simply made the hardware capable and worked with Tridef and IZ3D on getting their 3D software to work with their hardware.

It's called open standards. No one would really want another proprietary 3D format that only works with AMD GPUs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom