Does 3D really cut FPS in half?

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
I'm going to be getting a 120hz monitor for 3D Vision. To those of you who actually have and use 3D Vision: Does using the 3D really cut the perceived framerate in half? I just got my 680 in the mail from Newegg. I'm thinking I could return it and order 2x670 if I need more muscle. Thoughts?
 

demowhc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
274
Yeh it does because it sends alternating frames to each eye. You will want SLI for 3D imo.
 

Hagrid

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
9,135
I'm going to be getting a 120hz monitor for 3D Vision. To those of you who actually have and use 3D Vision: Does using the 3D really cut the perceived framerate in half? I just got my 680 in the mail from Newegg. I'm thinking I could return it and order 2x670 if I need more muscle. Thoughts?

Why not another 680?
 

MorgothPl

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
3,020
Yes it cuts your FPS by half... when I was playing 3D stuff, I needed two 570s - one was not enough to get good FPS number. Right now? Depends on the game methinks - in some, single 680 will be enough, but in Battlefield 3, Crysis 2 or other hardware hogs, you will need a second card.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
1080p@60Hz is ~2MP/sec; 1080p@120Hz is ~4MP/sec, similar to 1600p@60Hz. You don't need the 3/4GB cards to handle a 1600p frame-buffer, but you're doing just as much rendering work.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
Thanks for the comments! Am I correct in thinking that two 670s should get the job done?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Thanks for the comments! Am I correct in thinking that two 670s should get the job done?

Yes! It takes more than one current generation GPU to run the 27" and 30" monitors at high settings with AA, so it follows that you'd need more than one for 1080p@120Hz.
 

eapleitez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
178
I run a pair of GTX570's in SLI for 3D-Vision, works great. I find it's enough horsepower for running most games maxed out at 1080p. The only games so far that can really bring it down to its knees would be Witcher 2, Metro 2033. But everything looks awesome in stereoscopic 3D, I love it.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
Interesting. I just finished dealing w/ Newegg support. I asked them if they would kindly waive the $70 restocking fee considering that I was going to turn around and order a 120Hz monitor (same as yours actually), 2x670, and a 3D kit. They obliged, but only because I was willing to place the order while on the phone with the customer service rep! I'm glad to hear you like 3D, this upgrade has turned out to be much more expensive than I had originally planned, and was/am nervous that the end result would be underwhelming. Fingers crossed.
 

demowhc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
274
3D takes some adjustment for best results, its easy to dismiss at first when you are new to the tech.

Enabling convergence adjustment in the 3D keyboard shortcut menu makes a big difference. (by default its locked)
 

SirMaster

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
2,122
It doesn't always cut the FPS in half.

For example. Lets say your GTX 680 is capable of rendering 150FPS for a game. However, in 2D you actually only see 100FPS due to CPU bottleneck.

According to your original question, you would assume that 3D would mean 50FPS, half of the 100 you were getting in 2D.

In reality though you should be seeing half of your GPUs capability, so 75, half of 150. There generally isn't much more CPU work to be done in 3D move over 2D mode. Certainly not twice as much.

With a single overclocked GTX 680 at 1080p I normally see ~80FPS in BF3 at ultra in a 64 player server. In 3D at 1080p I'm seeing ~60fps actually in the same setting. If I go in a 16 player server or single player I see more like 120FPS in BF3, so that's why i'm seeing so many frames in 3D mode.


I would say a single 680 is currently fast enough for 3D at 1080p, but it wont be after long if you to run at max settings.
 

eapleitez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
178
Interesting. I just finished dealing w/ Newegg support. I asked them if they would kindly waive the $70 restocking fee considering that I was going to turn around and order a 120Hz monitor (same as yours actually), 2x670, and a 3D kit. They obliged, but only because I was willing to place the order while on the phone with the customer service rep! I'm glad to hear you like 3D, this upgrade has turned out to be much more expensive than I had originally planned, and was/am nervous that the end result would be underwhelming. Fingers crossed.

The same as my monitor? My ASUS comes with the 3D glasses and has the emitter built in; you don't need a separate 3D Vision kit.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
It doesn't always cut the FPS in half.

For example. Lets say your GTX 680 is capable of rendering 150FPS for a game. However, in 2D you actually only see 100FPS due to CPU bottleneck.

According to your original question, you would assume that 3D would mean 50FPS, half of the 100 you were getting in 2D.

In reality though you should be seeing half of your GPUs capability, so 75, half of 150. There generally isn't much more CPU work to be done in 3D move over 2D mode. Certainly not twice as much.

With a single overclocked GTX 680 at 1080p I normally see ~80FPS in BF3 at ultra in a 64 player server. In 3D at 1080p I'm seeing ~60fps actually in the same setting. If I go in a 16 player server or single player I see more like 120FPS in BF3, so that's why i'm seeing so many frames in 3D mode.


I would say a single 680 is currently fast enough for 3D at 1080p, but it wont be after long if you to run at max settings.

You're absolutely right, and that's a good explanation- I'll revise the original statement to say '3D may cut your FPS up to 50%'. The assumption without additional details, of course, is that all other things are equal and that the setup in question isn't CPU bound at all. That just throws wrenches in things :).
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
Thanks for all these informative replies. My question was more about perceived FPS. If you're seeing 80 FPS w/o 3D, and you get 60 FPS w/ 3D, then does it feel like 30 FPS? Because of the active shutter glasses?
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Thanks for all these informative replies. My question was more about perceived FPS. If you're seeing 80 FPS w/o 3D, and you get 60 FPS w/ 3D, then does it feel like 30 FPS? Because of the active shutter glasses?

The answer is: it depends. And not necessarily on 3D vs. non-3D.

How 'smooth' something feels in perceived FPS is going to be bound more by the consistency of frame-times. When consistent, it's generally difficult to distinguish from ~45FPS and much higher with only moderate movement, though you'll definitely see a difference in high/twitchy movement.

My bet is that in 3D, you're not going to want to go under 60FPS- consider that your minimum.

Also, just a random FS hook- I have an unlockable HD6950 that I'm still looking to get rid of, if you'd like another. I broke down my CFX setup when I picked up my GTX670 and one went to my brother, so the other needs a good home.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
Thanks, I'm curious to see what the end result is like. I'm suspecting my 680 may get the job done after all. It performs just fine at 1080p--I'm just unsure of what that will translate to in stereoscopic 3D.

RE: 6950, thanks for the offer, but I just sold mine in the FS forum.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,679
Thanks, I'm curious to see what the end result is like. I'm suspecting my 680 may get the job done after all. It performs just fine at 1080p--I'm just unsure of what that will translate to in stereoscopic 3D.

RE: 6950, thanks for the offer, but I just sold mine in the FS forum.

Assuming you have a 120Hz screen, performance shouldn't differ significantly- the biggest change will be using active shutter glasses. That can be jarring at first and fatiguing over time; I can't do it, personally, and I have a pretty good tolerance for visual aberrations.
 

eapleitez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
178
Assuming you have a 120Hz screen, performance shouldn't differ significantly- the biggest change will be using active shutter glasses. That can be jarring at first and fatiguing over time; I can't do it, personally, and I have a pretty good tolerance for visual aberrations.

I had some fatigue when I first started with 3d-Vision, after playing more than half an hour. My eyes quickly got used to it. I can play for hours without any eye fatiguing effects.

If possible, I would recommend SLI if you can swing it. I suppose you could always add another 680 down the road. But a pair of 670s in SLI imo would be better for 3D than one 680.

And the effect in many games is simply phenomenal! Right now I'm playing through Batman: Arkham Asylum. Looks amazing in stereo 3D. I've played the first Mass Effect, Battlefield 3, Portal, Age of Empires 3, The Witcher, Crysis 2, and others and it looks great. Some look better than others, but overall I'd say most games benefit. Some games simply don't work well or at all with it, so I didn't bother trying to make them work. These include just about any OpenGL (Doom 3, Quake 4) and also Crysis and Crysis Warhead was unplayable in 3D.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
Why were Crysis & Crysis: Warhead unplayable? Performance considerations or just bad stereoscopic 3D support?
 

eapleitez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
178
Bad support. Things were not converging correctly. The game itself runs fine. Supposedly you can get decent 3D if you turn down a lot of the graphical settings, but I decided to turn off the 3D and play it maxed out in 2D.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
I just wanted to report back on my experiences so far with the new upgrades:

ASUS VG278HE: Great monitor. I don't know if the TN vs IPS panel debate is still raging, but the panel looks great, and I have no complaints with color reproduction, viewing angles, etc. And I have used lots of IPS panels.

1080p, 27": This resolution with this screen size is no retina display. More pixels would be nice, but so would 2x690s and world peace. Deal breaker? Not even close.

120hz: The difference between 120hz and 60hz seems almost night-and-day to me. Will be doing some blind taste tests tomorrow with a friend to see if he notices it as well, and also to see if it's a case of placebo effect with me, though I doubt that is the case.

Stereoscopic 3D: This one was the big surprise for me. I didn't have terribly high hopes for this, I figured it could be a nice novelty from time to time. I left my first session with an epic headache and considered canning the glasses altogether. After giving it a couple more tries, I've adjusted very quickly. The more I play, the more I can see 3D becoming my preferred mode of gaming.

Some game-specific 3D thoughts:

- Battlefield 3: The 3D works very well, and adds a lot to the experience. If SPM and KDR are of paramount importance, then you will probably want to stick with 2D@120Hz, otherwise, go 3D! I switch between the two depending on my mood :)

- Crysis 2: This is a "feel-good" game if ever there was one. You run around in a high-tech nanosuit generally being awesome. The 3D greatly adds to this experience.

- Doom 3 BFG: There's been some griping regarding FOV, ammo, etc in this "remastered" Doom 3. Whatever--I own the original Doom 3 on Steam and sprung for the BFG edition purely for 3D support. It was $20 well spent. I am having a blast playing through it again in 3D. This is becoming a tired refrain by now, but it really kicks the immersion up a couple of notches.

- Batman: Arkham City: You have not gamed until you have played this in 3D.
 
Last edited:

eapleitez

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
178
it's definitely my preferred mode of gaming as well. I pretty much built my rig around 3D vision before trying it out, and am not disappointed one bit in the coin I spent. currently playing mass effect 2 with the helix mod, looks awesome of course.
 

Killa|3yte

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
2,266
I've been playing games in 3D at max depth without a hint of eye strain. It's amazing how quickly your eyes get used to the effect. I'm also feeling pleased with the purchase. I played the ME series on consoles and really liked it. May have to go try it on PC now!
 

Tamlin_WSGF

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
2,988
- Batman: Arkham City: You have not gamed until you have played this in 3D.

I'm not a big Batman fan and 3D is more a novelty for me (I have both 3D vision with Nvidia and Tridef with AMD), but this game is one of those which I prefer in 3D.

A few other titles I can think of on the top of my head which I find better in 3D is:

Trine 1+2
Darksiders
Numen - contest of heroes (old game that was boring without 3d, but fun in 3D)
Titan Quest, also an old game which was nice in 2d, but much more fun to play in 3D.
Alice - madness returns is fun to see in 3D. Gives a very nice effect.
All the old Tomb raider games gets a new life in 3D.
Same goes for all the Assassins Creed games. I don't play them in 2D, only 3D.

Might be some more, but those I remember well. I play mostly in 2D.

As for the cutting the fps in half, I would like to add that you can lower and sometimes turn off AA, since 3D smoothens things out by itself.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
I'm going to be getting a 120hz monitor for 3D Vision. To those of you who actually have and use 3D Vision: Does using the 3D really cut the perceived framerate in half? I just got my 680 in the mail from Newegg. I'm thinking I could return it and order 2x670 if I need more muscle. Thoughts?

Since u have 670SLI I would guess you will be able to run games very well in 3D. I have only ran Oblivion and the newer Duke Nukem a long time ago on a 560ti and it ran quite well. Made the game far more engrossing/entertaing or whatever. I tried TF2 in 3D but for me it just wasn't that fun for some reason I think its because that game is to fast paced and competitive i didnt want to check out the view so much (that and the source engine graphics look like big turds), so in MP online stuff maybe 3D is distracting I would say, but have not used it much. Uhm The Avengers in 3D vision with blu ray rip is badass, especially if u have a projector. best reason imo to own 3d vision is for 3d movies j/s.
 

teletran8

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
2,220
I'm not a big Batman fan and 3D is more a novelty for me (I have both 3D vision with Nvidia and Tridef with AMD), but this game is one of those which I prefer in 3D.

A few other titles I can think of on the top of my head which I find better in 3D is:

Trine 1+2
Darksiders
Numen - contest of heroes (old game that was boring without 3d, but fun in 3D)
Titan Quest, also an old game which was nice in 2d, but much more fun to play in 3D.
Alice - madness returns is fun to see in 3D. Gives a very nice effect.
All the old Tomb raider games gets a new life in 3D.
Same goes for all the Assassins Creed games. I don't play them in 2D, only 3D.

Might be some more, but those I remember well. I play mostly in 2D.

As for the cutting the fps in half, I would like to add that you can lower and sometimes turn off AA, since 3D smoothens things out by itself.

Oh yeah I agree Arkham City in 3D is sweet as bubblegum ;)
 

demowhc

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 30, 2011
Messages
274
Yeh Batman 1&2 with PhysX are certainly awesome in 3D :cool:

I'm addicted to starcraft 2 in 3D, but apart from that, I play a bit of Skyrim and Empire total War in 3D, and everything else like BF3 etc in 2D 120hz.

Believe it or not in cpu limited areas you don't really see a performance hit.

Yeh thats true, I guess as a general rule though, you could say 3D halves GPU performance.
 
Top