• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

3dvision or eyefinity

Eyefinity or 3dvision

  • Eyefinity

    Votes: 118 59.0%

  • 3d vision

    Votes: 29 14.5%

  • both

    Votes: 27 13.5%

  • none

    Votes: 26 13.0%
  • Total voters
    200
S

Stoly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,706
Which one contributes more to better your gaming experience.
 
I would answer on two levels here, one is that immersion factor of eyefinity is far greater and that much easier to implement. there is a lack of 120hz monitors right now (esp over 22") and no lack of monitors that can be used for eyefinity. eyefinity may (marginally) also be cheaper by the time you figure the 120hz monitor cost, the sli cost of needing double frame rates (good luck in warhead). on the other hand I have seen 22' monitors damn near 1/3 the price of the price of the 120hz. and it takes only one 5870 to run them.

to be fair here if all else was equal I would go the other way, hell even a 28" monitor with real 3d depth would be awesome.
 
eyefinity.

the 3dvision stuff has been tried for years, i remember getting a Geforce 256 with the 3d glasses (asus brand) and it was a cool novelty for a few hours but after a while it just wasn't worth the effort.
 
H-street said:
eyefinity.

the 3dvision stuff has been tried for years, i remember getting a Geforce 256 with the 3d glasses (asus brand) and it was a cool novelty for a few hours but after a while it just wasn't worth the effort.
Click to expand...

And multi monitor has been done for a long time too so what's the point?
Try before you judge, that is all I would like you guys to do before making a call about 3d vision.
You can have a full wall of monitors but the fact is we see in 3D and no amounts of monitors can change the fact that you are looking at a 2D image.
Try 3D, real good quality 3D then make the call.
Do not judge this on older technology.
Do not be one of those that still think LCD are crap because they tried the first gen, or that front projection sucks because they tried it years ago....things change my friends and while you play your games, say Batman on 6 monitors...flat world style, I would enjoy exploring the depths and details of that cool world the designers created.

Oh, and I own cards from both companies and my CPU is a Phenom so I am not a fan boy, I look for the company that gives me the most amazing, immersive experience, that is 3D.
Now if you give me multi monitor with 3D then we are talking there too. :D
 
I have yet to try combining both but I will.
I can see myself using softth when playing COD4 maybe in multiplayer to gain some lateral tactical advantage but not sure if I would prefer that over the depth of 3D Vision.
Worth testing to see if I can run both :)
 
kumquatsrus said:
3dvision + sofTH/triplehead

or

iz3d + eyefinity

= best of both worlds
Click to expand...

Would triplehead actually work with 3d vision? Doesn't it only run on the main screen or would it trick it into thinking all of the screens as being one? If it worked, I would defitnely think about getting an extra monitor.
 
iz3d wouldn't work with eyefinity since the iz3d monitors need two video inputs (so it's essentially two monitors layered into one)

I vote for 3d vision. I've used multiple monitors for a long time (albeit, not 3... but still) and it never did much for me from a gaming perspective, it's great for productivity though. 3D vision however, on the right game, adds SO much more to the experience. I haven't used any of nvidias products though so who knows... it was before they were making glasses.
 
I use a 61" samsung dlp with Stereo 3D and the effect really blew my mind. It's way better than the 3d glasses of yore and I dare say that this particular setup is even better than imax movies. It has zero flicker and zero ghosting (I've noticed some ghosting in imax), and is plenty bright(Stereo was previously only possible crts which just werent bright enough). Every person that I've shown this setup immediately gets a wide grin on their faces like a kid in a toy store as soon as the 3d kicks in. It's really something that you have to see before believing.

Playing GRID feels like your in a car where everything has depth and it really feels like you're behind the wheel and the your're looking over the hood of the car in front of you. Jumping off buildings in Assassin's Creed and Mirror's Edge makes my hands sweat and makes my stomach drop like it does when snowboarding down a steep slope. It actually causes my body to tense up as it anticipates my imminent splattering. People who are not used to the 3d effect will actually physically duck out the way of rockets launched at their faces. The experience is really visceral.

That's not to say that eyefinity probably isnt great too. Stereo is about depth, and eyefinity is about breadth. They're not mutually exclusive and having both would be six kinds of awesome.
 
That's not to say that eyefinity probably isnt great too. Stereo is about depth, and eyefinity is about breadth. They're not mutually exclusive and having both would be six kinds of awesome.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
dr.stevil said:
iz3d wouldn't work with eyefinity since the iz3d monitors need two video inputs (so it's essentially two monitors layered into one)

I vote for 3d vision. I've used multiple monitors for a long time (albeit, not 3... but still) and it never did much for me from a gaming perspective, it's great for productivity though. 3D vision however, on the right game, adds SO much more to the experience. I haven't used any of nvidias products though so who knows... it was before they were making glasses.
Click to expand...

ah i c, was just a thought lol
 
shaolin95 said:
Do not judge this on older technology.
Click to expand...

Why? The older technology had a better chance to succeed and still failed. Or is it that you just don't want the truth, that this iteration will also fail.

The old one that I tried would work with all the monitors of its time. The new one will only work with rare and more expensive monitors that hardly anyone already owns. The new one may work with CRTs, but almost no one uses those anymore.

The old system I had worked with almost any graphics card. The new system is only for Nvidia cards.

3d Vision is almost certain to fail. I wouldn't expect 3d to succeed until we have holographic monitors or very much improved virtual reality headsets.

Stereoscopic vision is just a gimmick. It's over 150 years old and has never replaced 2d. It failed with pictures, failed with movies, and is going to fail with games again. The novelty will wear off quickly, like it has everytime it's been tried in the last 150 years.
 
Matrox has had triplehead2go for years and that wasn't much of a success. Eyefinity appears to be doing much better so there is precedence here for not judging the success of the current generation by the last generation.
 
A your kidding right OP? 3 monitors or 3D vision whats better? Well since I bought a 5870.. and have 3D.. got to go 3D. If you ever tried red/blue 3d. AMP that by 1000X times with 3D vision. But hey.. 3 monitors is super too. When ATI get the drivers working good for the 3 monitors. For ME.. ME.. if I have the monitors connected at boot I get a blue screen everytime going in to windows. Connect them after.. then works great.
 
BladeVenom said:
Why? The older technology had a better chance to succeed and still failed. Or is it that you just don't want the truth, that this iteration will also fail.

The old one that I tried would work with all the monitors of its time. The new one will only work with rare and more expensive monitors that hardly anyone already owns. The new one may work with CRTs, but almost no one uses those anymore.

The old system I had worked with almost any graphics card. The new system is only for Nvidia cards.

3d Vision is almost certain to fail. I wouldn't expect 3d to succeed until we have holographic monitors or very much improved virtual reality headsets.

Stereoscopic vision is just a gimmick. It's over 150 years old and has never replaced 2d. It failed with pictures, failed with movies, and is going to fail with games again. The novelty will wear off quickly, like it has everytime it's been tried in the last 150 years.
Click to expand...

By the same token. Multi monitor will never replace single monitor. It wont take 150 years to make it a failure with movies. It has alread failed.
 
I picked none. I think that Eyefinity will be the greater tech out of the two, just based on its practicality in the business field. However, I think it will be a small userbase at best in the game side.

On the other hand, 3d Vision is too reliant on game devs doing their rendering component in extremely specific ways, leaving the depth buffer intact in a very specific way. Games without that data, or games that modify the data before Nvidia captures it (IE: most games using deferred shading --- of note is growing in use), will be unable to be processed by 3d vision to create a useable final render. This right there will cause 3d vision to be a minority niche at best.
 
none: I don't have either setup so I can't make an honest vote.
 
Stoly said:
By the same token. Multi monitor will never replace single monitor. It wont take 150 years to make it a failure with movies. It has alread failed.
Click to expand...

Two monitors for a desktop is common now, thanks to LCDs and their cheap prices. Not much of a stretch to think that people might get a 3rd if their video card supports it.
 
schenksmill said:
I picked none. I think that Eyefinity will be the greater tech out of the two, just based on its practicality in the business field. However, I think it will be a small userbase at best in the game side.

On the other hand, 3d Vision is too reliant on game devs doing their rendering component in extremely specific ways, leaving the depth buffer intact in a very specific way. Games without that data, or games that modify the data before Nvidia captures it (IE: most games using deferred shading --- of note is growing in use), will be unable to be processed by 3d vision to create a useable final render. This right there will cause 3d vision to be a minority niche at best.
Click to expand...

Nvidia does all the work... Game devs can help out by rendering things in certain ways, yes, but most old games work with it as well. I would not have bought mine had it only worked with certain games. Still don't believe me? Some users claim that Wii games work with with 3d vision with a directx plugin. Do you think Nintendo made their games with 3d vision in mind?
 
I agree. If we have to wait for the 3d ready games then it would be worthless but right now I can install pretty much any game and get the effect.
 
anyone calling both technologies worthless is not an enthusiast

and I personally prefer eyefinity, but if 3d vision becomes mainstream I'm down for that too.
 
for those that want both eyefinity and stereo 3D, you can use generic 3D shutter glasses (and possibly the nvidia ones too) with the IZ3D drivers to get the effect on ATi cards.

You can also use it for polarized and anaglyph modes :) only downside is that it's not as well implemented as nvidia
 
maxbennett said:
Nvidia does all the work... Game devs can help out by rendering things in certain ways, yes, but most old games work with it as well. I would not have bought mine had it only worked with certain games. Still don't believe me? Some users claim that Wii games work with with 3d vision with a directx plugin. Do you think Nintendo made their games with 3d vision in mind?
Click to expand...

I know a game I'm currently working on doesn't work due to our use of deferred shading, so I'm pretty well aware of what the limitations of the technology are. Right off, look at the compatibility list of some games:

Crysis - "Water reflection and clouds are not correct. Set Shadows to low/shaders and Post Processing to medium or lower. Turn motion blur off. Turn off in game laser sight (in Mouse and Keyboard Setup) Use Nvidia laser sight."

Bioshock - "Turn off Shadow Maps, High Detail Post Processing, and Distortion. Bright colors on dark background produce ghosting."

Left 4 Dead - "Clouds at wrong depth. Setting film grain to off provides better stereo effect."

And that's just a few games off the list that DON'T use deferred shading. If that's "working", I'll stay away from that.
 
schenksmill said:
I know a game I'm currently working on doesn't work due to our use of deferred shading, so I'm pretty well aware of what the limitations of the technology are. Right off, look at the compatibility list of some games:

Crysis - "Water reflection and clouds are not correct. Set Shadows to low/shaders and Post Processing to medium or lower. Turn motion blur off. Turn off in game laser sight (in Mouse and Keyboard Setup) Use Nvidia laser sight."

Bioshock - "Turn off Shadow Maps, High Detail Post Processing, and Distortion. Bright colors on dark background produce ghosting."

Left 4 Dead - "Clouds at wrong depth. Setting film grain to off provides better stereo effect."

And that's just a few games off the list that DON'T use deferred shading. If that's "working", I'll stay away from that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not perfect. Left4Dead and Bioshock play pretty well but Crysis...well, Crysis is hard enough to run w/o 3d vision. Sorry if I came off as an ass in my previous comment but a lot of people overlook and judge this product before using it. Some games don't work with certain effects like shadows but I would rather play with low settings of shadows or none at all to play in 3d. I can see why this would be a concern to you if you are developing games but just keep doing your job and things should end up working out.
 
Competition only benifits the consumer (R&D) baby. Both camp followers can enjoy such technology! Besides....I'm not ready for "The Peoples" videocard! Let' justs enjoy the pretty images and multi-functionality of devices that can do such great things! Before they limit us to one monitor and ration electricity!
 
And that's just a few games off the list that DON'T use deferred shading. If that's "working", I'll stay away from that.
Click to expand...
Try it dude, just try it before you judge then you will feel like a fool about this comment, trust me. ;)
I am a very picky person to give you an idea, my speaker have to be perfectly set up with precise angles (using autocad), my projectors has to be perfectly calibrated, no blue vision here, etc...so for me to love the glasses, they must be something special when it does not bother me to lower a shadow details to enjoy pure gaming nirvana.
 
Last edited:
schenksmill said:
I know a game I'm currently working on doesn't work due to our use of deferred shading, so I'm pretty well aware of what the limitations of the technology are. Right off, look at the compatibility list of some games:

Crysis - "Water reflection and clouds are not correct. Set Shadows to low/shaders and Post Processing to medium or lower. Turn motion blur off. Turn off in game laser sight (in Mouse and Keyboard Setup) Use Nvidia laser sight."

Bioshock - "Turn off Shadow Maps, High Detail Post Processing, and Distortion. Bright colors on dark background produce ghosting."

Left 4 Dead - "Clouds at wrong depth. Setting film grain to off provides better stereo effect."

And that's just a few games off the list that DON'T use deferred shading. If that's "working", I'll stay away from that.
Click to expand...
"Working" is the quality of experience provided by the end result of the product when you're sitting there and playing the game not whether some laundry list of requirements are met. You do have to tweak some games for optimal 3d performance, but Nvidia has profiled a ton of games and a text overlay actually tells you what you need to configure for a particular game when you start the game, so its pretty easy. IMHO the innate sense of depth provided by stereo separation is easily worth turning off some other effects. Shadows are typically the most problematic thing, but stereo separation is a much stronger depth cue than shadows are on a 2d screen.

You really need to see it first before you can make any kind of qualitative comnparison as to whether or not the trade off is worth it or to dismiss the technology.
 
It's funny how people say 3d is old technology but I guess they didn't research how much different 3d Vision is than the previous generations. When Matrox first came out with triple monitor gaming I had it for a bit on 3 21" CRT monitors (so that tells you how long that technology has been around as well) and I wasn't so impressed. I actually returned the card and sold the 2 extra monitors.

I also had the old nvidia glasses that I stopped using after a while as well because of the negatives but I have the new 3d vision and it's a whole new ball game. Very impressive.

Is there anything improved about the eyefinity to the matrox that makes it better now? Is there less of a framerate hit or something? I'm willing to try it, it looks cool...I just don't know if it's worth ditching my 3d vision stuff for.
 
Obviously the tough issue here for 3d Vision is, aside from the usual people that put things down without having the minimum idea of what they are talking about, is that you cannot show people how awesome it is unless they try it.
Unlike a triple monitor set up where you can see screenshots and videos with 3D vision things are a lot harder to show up.
 
i had 3-d on my sega master system.... cant comment on anything newer, but im putting my money on Eyefinity
 
Neither are ready for mainstream use yet.
I love 3D, but NVidias attempts to make it a realistic prospect have fallen well short.
So while I voted for neither, EyeFinity will be the more useful so if you "must" purchase, get that.

Note that either of them will give a large performance drop so any attempt to use both together is a surefire lose unless you get the highest performing parts and double them up at least !!
 
EyeFinity looks cool for sure, BUT...I gotta say that I agree with what shaolin95 that the 3D Vision glasses need to be experienced in a good setting to get the full effect. The added depth makes it look like a giant window, but its gotta be seen first. I haven't seen any of the in store displays, but I'll bet they are doing it all wrong. They need to be shown running on a nice HTPC setup, because then you get the full effect. They have access to all that stuff so I can't understand why they don't set up a room with the best setup they could, they would for sure sell more TV's, surround sound systems, etc. Even Dell or someone could get involved and make some cash by selling the "3D Vision" ready PC that is running the demo unit. You could get Logitech to program it in to one of their "3D Vision" harmony remotes. The possibilities are endless.

If they had a setup like that and put a ton of effort into making it as accessible and understandable as possible they could maybe take it mainstream. But by the time that the PC makes 3D stereo popular, the consoles will get it and everyone will forget about the PC again lol. Until then though, I can't recommend them enough, especially for games that you will play for a long time, because most racing games work amazing with them, and I am pretty sure plenty of MMO's work well on them too. I only mention those because the biggest problem with 3D vision is that new games usually don't work correctly until a driver release or so after they come out. But if you don't play games the day they come out, and you have older games that you are playing (older being around 2 months or so) then you will have very few problems. The good thing is that they are getting better about new games so this probably won't be a problem in the next year or so. So I guess that adds to their longevity.

Don't get me wrong, they still work, but still not well enough for them to be mainstream. I couldn't really picture my dad going through all the trouble I do to get games to work sometimes. He would probably do it once, but I doubt he would keep doing it for much longer because he would probably just use it a few times and stop using it. Then he would be bitter a year or two later when the PS4 (or whatever) comes out and needs different glasses lol (which they inevitably will).
 
I want to try 3D glasses.
So far Ive read a lot of 'I can't describe the wow effect unless you've tried them ourselves' type of reviews which stirs my curiosity.

Eyefinity does not interest me as much as its basically just larger resolution. Early judgement I know, but the super widescreen seems and bazels seem too weird for me.
 
Good post redman.

ihira, you may want to check here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Test_Drive_Centers.html
Hopefully you are going to be luckier than I was, the local store carrying it had it but did not even bother to connect it....lame. :(
Good think I knew more or less how it would be so I was not concerned about buying it....I have been gaming more hours in the last few days since I got it than I have in months!
I am sure my wife is not liking them that much now since I am pretty much here all day but well, that's life. :)
Eyefinity is nice at least for 3 monitors as 6 with all the bezels look horrible to me but still no matter what is just 2D.
I have tried softth just yesterday with COD4 and Left4Dead and while of course better than a single monitor by far, it was nowhere near real 3D.
Regards
 
Sadly 3D Vision has been giving me migraines, so that is not an option for me unless i kill my kidney's with tylenol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top