When will ATI have 3D?

They already have it.
You just have to buy one of these:
ati_video_card_109-49800-10.jpg

It will blow your mind.
 
cageymaru said:
Hell I have sweat running down my ears when I have to coordinate crap on vent wearing my headphones. I could imagine having the glasses's cord, headphone cord, and mic cord attached to me and sweat rolling down my face. 3/4 of the time I pretend my vent doesn't work to avoid the damn headphones. :)
Click to expand...

BTW, the glasses have no chord because they are wireless.
 
Why is nVidia's new 3D kit so expensive anyway? My legacy kit (Dongle + glasses) was had for 10 bucks. It's just a pair of black LCD glasses and a simple circuit that monitors the vga cable's v-pin. Just how different are the new ones?

Will there be 3rd party developers that can make wired (if that'll make it cheaper) glasses that'll also work with nvidia?
 
mortonP said:
Yes, when an object looks like it is real 3D the edges are rounded so are smooth looking already. I never use AA when running 3D games. 1024x768 is plenty of res too but I guess more is probably better but your video card needs to work twice as hard to keep the frame rates up in 3D so it is better to use a CRT so you can use a lower res and have decent frame rates. I'm using an 8800GT and my frame rates are good in all games using 3D @1024x768. If I was forced to use an LCD with 1920x1200 then those frame rates in 3D would probably suck. Anyway, I have no intention of running all my games 3D all the time because it does do a number on your eyes if you use them for too long. But in doses of a couple of hours or so and for games that do 3D really well it is a fun experience and not just a gimmick. The thing is I have the option to use 3D if I choose and those who call it just a gimmick won't. Their loss.
Click to expand...

So the edges are smooth in 3D but without AA you are just seeing it as smooth because you are losing definition on those edges as a result of the 3D? I'll have to try it before I judge it, I don't any amount of talking is going to convince me that games look better on a 17" CRT at 1024x768 compared to my 28" LCD at 1920x1200 and the big dip in framerate just doesn't seem worth it unless if really does blow a person away. So do you need 120Hz monitor as well? I've heard you can't even run 3D on 60Hz.
 
TooFastToPlay said:
Using your generalization logic, most people who say 3D is crap and gimmick have never played a game with it, or have a visual disability that prevents them from seeing in 3D even in the real world (they are said to be something like 15% of the population).

3D technology is not perfect yet and needs to be adjusted per system, game AND player, but when it works, it is mind blowing and going back to 2D will feel bland and boring. For example, GTA4 looks astonishing in 3D.
Click to expand...

+1. 3D totally changes games. I think it looks awesome. Can't wait for nVidia 3D Play software so I can play them on my Plasma.
 
Sly said:
Why is nVidia's new 3D kit so expensive anyway? My legacy kit (Dongle + glasses) was had for 10 bucks. It's just a pair of black LCD glasses and a simple circuit that monitors the vga cable's v-pin. Just how different are the new ones?

Will there be 3rd party developers that can make wired (if that'll make it cheaper) glasses that'll also work with nvidia?
Click to expand...

Nvidia is so expensive because they selling it as a luxury item.
 
Sly said:
Why is nVidia's new 3D kit so expensive anyway? My legacy kit (Dongle + glasses) was had for 10 bucks. It's just a pair of black LCD glasses and a simple circuit that monitors the vga cable's v-pin. Just how different are the new ones?

Will there be 3rd party developers that can make wired (if that'll make it cheaper) glasses that'll also work with nvidia?
Click to expand...

Because someone has to pay for all the dev work that goes into making games work in 3D and there is no real competition so they can charge what they like.
 
IZ3D is still working on it.. might be at least a couple more months according to the forums over at IZ3D.com... they say they already have it working with private beta drivers from ATI that offers quad-buffering support, but i thought it should have been ready by last April??
 
dorky82 said:
To me its too early to go 3D. Go watch 3d movies at theater. Didnt impress me. Watched toystory in 3d last week.
Click to expand...

Polarized glasses usually do not do as good a job of 3D as shutter glasses (the good ones, at least).

Plus the movies have a limited depth to it. A truly 3D movie would be where your eyes are able to focus upon anything in the background. However, most of the time, the background is blurry and out-of-focus as the camera was centered upon a specific object in the picture. This is perhaps the biggest reason why 3D fails to impress that much because the way the picture was filmed does not give your eyes complete freedom to auto-focus upon anything in the screen with razor-sharp clarity and depth.
 
If you read journalists' comments on the Killzone 3 demonstration at E3, most if not all of them were pretty underwhelmed by the 3D feature, though Sony and the game devs were pushing it heavily.

Maybe in a few years, when I buy another HDTV and new monitors, I will give it another look, but I'm sure as hell not paying a premium for it now.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't have a lot of experience with it but that's essentially my take on it. I've tried a few demos of the technology here and there. I've never been impressed by it. I'm not a fan of 3D TV either. Sitting in my house wearing glasses that make it even harder for me to get laid than it already is just sucks.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you are able to adjust the convergence settings to optimal 3D depth and popping-out effect, it'd look a lot better. Just gotta try out a few different shutter glasses. Some are comfortable for some people. Some are just not.

Imagine back in the 50's to 70's when contact lenses or lasik were not comfortably "practical" solutions? People had to wear glasses all day long, reducing their chances of getting laid. Wearing glasses just to enjoy stereo-3D would probably enhance your chances of getting laid if your spouse also enjoys watching porn with you in 3D for a few minutes beforehand! :D :p Yeah, I'm being just as illogical here!

But seriously, I've loved 3D gaming for many years. It was always a pain going back to 2D. Like for example, when playing Dirt 2 in 3D, it gave so much more depth to the tracks and the foilage on the sides, then when I turned off 3D the game felt awfully flat and lifeless. UGH!
 
3D TV and games just give a few objects a more 3D look against the same flat background. To me its unpleasant to look at.
 
Yeah, some games have awful backgrounds that do not even correctly render in 3D, appearing more shallow than other distant objects that are supposed to be in front of the background! For some other games, the background is hardly an issue as the 3D is awesome. Hopefully nearly all of the games will soon be optimally designed for 3D.
 
Bo_Fox said:
Yeah, some games have awful backgrounds that do not even correctly render in 3D, appearing more shallow than other distant objects that are supposed to be in front of the background! For some other games, the background is hardly an issue as the 3D is awesome. Hopefully nearly all of the games will soon be optimally designed for 3D.
Click to expand...

It really adds to the immersiveness of the game when it works correctly. Racing games are awesome. Avatar definitely benefited from it since it was made for 3D anyway.
 
Bo_Fox said:
Imagine back in the 50's to 70's when contact lenses or lasik were not comfortably "practical" solutions? People had to wear glasses all day long, reducing their chances of getting laid.
Click to expand...

The difference is is that glasses don't bar you from getting laid unless you get the big, black bulky looking ones that, oddly enough, are the same "style" as the glasses you need for 3D. :rolleyes:

Speaking as someone who wears glasses and gets laid all I can think is that you're doing something wrong Bo Fox. :rolleyes:

Also, my glasses don't strain my eyes, give my major headaches and they dont make my games look like garbage.

3D gaming: "improving" game by lower eye candy and IQs.
 
CrimandEvil said:
The difference is is that glasses don't bar you from getting laid unless you get the big, black bulky looking ones that, oddly enough, are the same "style" as the glasses you need for 3D. :rolleyes:

Speaking as someone who wears glasses and gets laid all I can think is that you're doing something wrong Bo Fox. :rolleyes:

Also, my glasses don't strain my eyes, give my major headaches and they dont make my games look like garbage.

3D gaming: "improving" game by lower eye candy and IQs.
Click to expand...

But with 3d sex games you won't need to go out anymore!
 
DeathPrincess said:
Exactly! And it's less risky than a hooker... Which is now what i'm going to assume all those people with anything but 480/470s are doing. Weridos
Click to expand...

I was talking about a booty call. No idea WTF you're talking about now.... :confused:

To clarify, I'm talking about with another person.
 
Dan_D said:
I don't have a lot of experience with it but that's essentially my take on it. I've tried a few demos of the technology here and there. I've never been impressed by it. I'm not a fan of 3D TV either. Sitting in my house wearing glasses that make it even harder for me to get laid than it already is just sucks.
Click to expand...

Uhm at what point during your 3d gaming are you wooing a girl into having sex with you too though.
 
WorldExclusive said:
Exactly.
ATI will have 3D next gen but it's nothing to change your hardware now over.
You will have to buy two Fermi cards plus three 120Hz monitors with glasses = $1K+
I wouldn't waste time with the 200 series for three monitors.
Click to expand...

Geez, my own setup was just a regular CRT and cost me $10.00
 
I wouldn't waste time with the 200 series for three monitors.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what would make you say that, do you have two GTX2xx cards? Have you seen two GTX2xx cards running NV Surround?

Because I can tell you first hand that my two GTX275's in SLi running NV Surround are getting between 60 and 95fps in BFBC2 running DX10, AA @ 1x, AF @ 1x, HBAO disabled, all settings maxed @ 5964 x 1080.

In L4D2 running AA @ 16x, AF @ 8x, all settings maxed, 5964 x 1080 I get a rock steady 60fps.

In COD4 running all settings maxed I get a rock steady 90fps @ 5964 x 1080.

All on an i7 920 based system @ 4.0ghz, 6GB CL7 ram, Foxconn Flaming Blade mobo, etc.

....So I wouldn't count the 2xx series of cards as any where near dead just yet - Hell, if you want NV Surround with a single card than the 2xx series is your only option.
 
Dan_D said:
3D TV and games just give a few objects a more 3D look against the same flat background. To me its unpleasant to look at.
Click to expand...

Try adjusting the depth AND convergence.

In Kyle's write-up, I didn't see anything where he talked about convergence, only depth. Convergence MUST be adjusted to avoid eye strain.

He said when the played that game when it is improperly scaled, he didn't get nauseous. That makes me think there is room for adjustment. I hope he still has the screens setup.

I'm going to take a few 3D screenshots with 50% depth and varying levels of convergence to post here. The difference is night and day. The controls, when enabled in NV's control panel, are CTRL-F5 and CTRL-F6. You can save the convergence level with CTRL-F7, once you have achieved the desired convergence level. It takes ten to thirty seconds to find the ideal convergence, then you never have to set it for that game, again.
 
ELox said:
So the edges are smooth in 3D but without AA you are just seeing it as smooth because you are losing definition on those edges as a result of the 3D? I'll have to try it before I judge it, I don't any amount of talking is going to convince me that games look better on a 17" CRT at 1024x768 compared to my 28" LCD at 1920x1200 and the big dip in framerate just doesn't seem worth it unless if really does blow a person away. So do you need 120Hz monitor as well? I've heard you can't even run 3D on 60Hz.
Click to expand...

Where did I say 17" CRT? I have 19" CRT and I would like to try it on larger widescreen LCD but don't own one that can do 120hz, yet. CRT allows me to see 3D and still get good frame rates even with a lowly 8800GT.

Yes, you need 120hz LCD. On CRT you can do 3D with 100hz too but not on LCD. THat 120hz gets halved for each glass lens so what you see through the glasses is actually 60hz per eye.
 
What might be nice is if you could get one 120hz monitor for 3D gaming and then run it at 60hz with two other regular monitor for 2D Surround gaming when you wanted to.
 
TheBuzzer said:
Nvidia is so expensive because they selling it as a luxury item.
Click to expand...

It's not expensive considering I paid the same price just for TrackIR4 and all that does is track your head movement. The Nvidia glasses are wireless and connect via a simple USB connection. Ten years ago I had the Asus glasses and they were hardwired into the video card and any 2D text was unreadable. The text is perfectly readable now and I am not tied down to a chord going to the video card. At NCIX you can get them for $50.00 less if you get the non-Avatar game included version, which is what I did.
 
Dan_D said:
3D TV and games just give a few objects a more 3D look against the same flat background. To me its unpleasant to look at.
Click to expand...

Then you have been trying the wrong games because in some it can immerse you into a complete 3D world. The classic game Mafia looks amazing in 3D.
 
Hehe! In your face, CrimandEvil!

CrimandEvil said:
Also, my glasses don't strain my eyes, give my major headaches and they dont make my games look like garbage.

3D gaming: "improving" game by lower eye candy and IQs.
Click to expand...

If 300 people say that it gives them headaches, but 100 true enthusiasts with good 3D glasses and proper settings say otherwise, which one should you believe? Hey, 300 is a bigger number, so better go with that one! :rolleyes:

Also, 3D gives far, far greater eye candy. What's all the fuss about resolution size (1920x1200 is better than 1680x1050, or eyefinity 5760x1200 iz teh best!), when 3d adds a third dimension of resolution to the display (1920x1200x10000)? Multiply the numbers and let the numbers do the talking! It also makes the monitor feel much bigger (at least twice as big) as your eyes are drawn into the depth of it. Things just look bigger, like in the binoculars.

Also, it pretty much gives 2x AA for free as separate left and right images are being combined (at least 2x1 AA) when your eyes focus on the overall image. Just trust me on this as I'm a veteran myself with 3D gaming. Any other questions?

Let's not whine like a pessimist. Let's just be happy and rejoice the dawn of 3D age! The sooner, the better.

It's like saying that color is worse than black-and-white just because the pictures were not as sharp back then in the 60's compared to the b/w ones.
 
I'm upgrading to a 5850 here shortly, instead of izod could I use a 3DTV as a monitor and use the TV's glasses instead? Or would I need izod's software still?
 
mortonP said:
Wow, if the girls saw what you post here I doubt you would ever get laid.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm like this in person too. I'm just that good I guess. lol
Bo_Fox said:
Hehe! In your face, CrimandEvil!
Click to expand...
No idea what you're talking about....

If 300 people say that it gives them headaches, but 100 true enthusiasts with good 3D glasses and proper settings say otherwise, which one should you believe? Hey, 300 is a bigger number, so better go with that one! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It depends. How many of that 300 are idiots? How many are fan-boys and how many are truly impartial enough that they actually think 3D adds to gameplay in any meaningful way? I agree with Kyle's assessment; 3D does nothing for me but gives me pain and ruins what could have been an awesome experience. I've tried some of the better shutter glasses out there, pure shit for me. The fact of the matter is is that 3D is just a gimmick until we get to the point where we have true 3D displays without having to wear additional shitty special glasses.

Until then, it's just as good as Nintendo's Virtualboy.

Now, I'm not totally anti-3D gaming. I felt rather impressed with Nintendo's 3DS and I'm planning on picking one up to replace the DS lite my sister stole from me (and covered in Hello Kitty stickers) but that also depends on how long it is possible to play it without any of the usual headaches I get while watching 3D material.
 
Last edited:
Dark Shroud said:
I'm upgrading to a 5850 here shortly, instead of izod could I use a 3DTV as a monitor and use the TV's glasses instead? Or would I need izod's software still?
Click to expand...

You would still need iZ3D driver. And its going to look like crap because you can't output frame sequential 720p60 yet. For people with nVidia cards they need the 3D Play software which hasn't been released yet. Who knows what ATI will do.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/3d-tv-play.html
 
IRSmurf said:
In Kyle's write-up, I didn't see anything where he talked about convergence, only depth. Convergence MUST be adjusted to avoid eye strain.

He said when the played that game when it is improperly scaled, he didn't get nauseous. That makes me think there is room for adjustment. I hope he still has the screens setup.
Click to expand...

To my understand what NV calls "depth" is convergence. Maybe I am wrong on that but sitting with the engineer on this setup I was never shown any other adjustment. And yes, the depth moves the images together or apart.

Panels were shipped to Brent for EF vs Surround article.

I have Surround setup still here, but not 120Hz panels.
 
danman said:
It really adds to the immersiveness of the game when it works correctly. Racing games are awesome. Avatar definitely benefited from it since it was made for 3D anyway.
Click to expand...

My Avatar experience was much better watching it in 2D the second time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top