nvidia 3D vs 2d surround

For those who've tried both, which would you rather have if you could only have one? I'm looking to upgrade, have never tried either, and don't really have a way to test without buying the necessary hardware first. Thanks!

I was thinking about the same thing. A single bigger, say 27", 3d monitor would probably be cheaper than say 3 20" regular 2d led monitors. If you do the 2d surround you need high end graphics in sli to run games at that high Res. I think either route would be cool. Either being able to see your peripheral vision or things pop out in 3d.

While I haven't done "Surround" video, as in 3D across multiple monitors, I have done 3D. I find the whole 3D thing to be a bit gimmicky, to be honest. I spent $600 to get a 23.6" display and 3d glasses, and I almost never use 3D.

Dutt, There are no 27" 120hz monitors. If you look hard, you can find a 24", but they are expensive. You would have to get a 3D TV if you wanted anything larger than that and would be 32" or larger. You are correct about needing SLI to run a 2D setup. partly to be able to get decent framerates, and also to support more than 2 displays. You can only attach 2 displays per videoboard.

Do be aware, when you play games in 3D, you drop framerates drastically, even on a single screen, as your card has to render the same frame twice per cycle.

Griffin,

Acer begs to differ with you; they offer the HN274H 27" 120hz monitor with built-in IR emitter and NVidia 3d Vision glasses.

Ok, that a new product. glad to see they are offering something larger than they used to. When I got mine a year ago, there was nothing bigger than 24" and they were super expensive.

There are 2 27" 120hz monitors, the Acer mentioned above and the Samsung S27A950D Review, but it only supports Side-By-Side (960x1080p stretched) with Nvidia cards, but there is a work around to support true 3D apparently.

Here is a review of the Acer, it is pretty medicore compared to every other gaming monitor picture quality wise and it is slow. Now the defenders will come in here and say is great and does not ghost, but even Nvidia admitted that the Acer is slow.

There are tons of issues with 2D surround like screen tearing, image stretching...I would do some research. I prefer 3D because it makes games more immersive and IMO makes up for the small size of my Asus VG236H with the extra depth, but like mentioned above you need a powerful rig to get decent framerates.

i was thinking about 3d, but the hightest resolution they have right now is 1920x1080. I currently have 1920x1200. Even though a negligable different in res, I would prefer not to downgrade my resolution. If not too much longer to wait, I would like to just hold out for 1200p and higher 3d monitors that I believe will require a new displayport or hdmi version to be able to carry that much more data. Depending on how long that may be, I would be willing to jump on it now. The res is about the same, just a slightly different aspect ratio. I have my eye on the new samsung 3d monitors that just came out, but they are crazy expensive for the 27", like $700 or something. It would also be cool if they came out with 3d soon that didn't require the glasses, kinda like the nintendo 3ds handheld

I tried the surround thing. Got motion sick in 5 min.
Then I got the s27a950 and it's great once you learn how to tune the 3D to reduce crosstalk. Even if the 3d effect gets old for me, the 120hz 2D is also awesome. I would never go back to 60hz 2D.
It's a great monitor if you don't mind glossy.
IMHO I would recommend you get the s27a950, but if that doesnt float your boat then get a 30'' single monitor, probably that ips Hp with the low lag.

60Hz IPS > 120Hz TN > 60hz TN. I'll never go back to TN.

Nirad9er, the resolution thing is something that annoys me as well. 1080p may be great for TV and movies, but I find it terrible for computing.