Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Nvidia 3D vision, Is it worth it??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 3, 2013 10:04:14 PM

well i have been looking around and stumbled on to 3D, i thought it was cool but is it truly worth it. I have been looking at gtx 680's but cant decide, my first gpu pick was the sapphire vapor-x. I need help on choosing a gpu and making the decision on 3D. All opinions are welcomed, please share:) 

More about : nvidia vision worth

April 3, 2013 10:23:20 PM

you will have to buy a compatible monitor if you want 3d.
i also have 120hz monitor that is 3d capable (not nvidia's)
i rarely use it, but the 120hz is a welcome feature, the 3d is just a bonus to me. well i do watch 3d bluray when i have the money to buy one :) 
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 10:25:48 PM

ya i thought i would but wasn't sure, even with the added price for the monitor do you think it is a feature worth going out of my way for
m
0
l
Related resources
April 3, 2013 11:04:32 PM

Not really, I have a 3dtv and AMD's 3rd party solution. It's fun but meh. And a lot a of games, sleeping dogs, crisis 3 have 3d natively so its cool but not as fun as 2d IMO. Your eyes will thank me lol
m
0
l

Best solution

April 3, 2013 11:09:29 PM

I personally like it a lot. I pretty much won't play a single player game that doesn't support 3D Vision. Unfortunately that is a lot, but luckily, I found this site: http://helixmod.wikispot.org/gamelist

It fixes a lot of great games to work great with 3D. One of the draw backs of the 3dtv's is they have to operate at 720p or 24hz, neither of which are good for gaming. Unless it is passive, then its halved in resolution by having half the rows not being visible for each eye.

As a note about eye strain: I find my eyes strain a little bit when going from 3D to 2D if I'm used to playing the game in 3D. I imagine the same is possible going the other way, but I find it more natural, as we normally use binocular vision in real life. The reason is if I'm used to looking at objects with depth, turning it off causes my eyes to expect to see depth then readjust to not seeing depth immediately, causing eye strain. Though the problem doesn't happen if I started off in 2D when I first learned the game.
Share
April 3, 2013 11:25:25 PM

3D not recommended in general:

To game in 3D requires a lot more processing. Even with a GTX680, most modern games can barely reach 60FPS at 1920x1080 once all the quality is at its highest.

If you game in 3D that 60FPS is down to 30FPS or else you have to reduce the quality. 3D or better graphics in 2D? The answer to me is an easy one.

I personally love gaming on my Dell 27" 2560x1440 monitor (though I game at 1920x1080 usually due to the performance hit. exceptions include games with small text/HUD like Diablo 3).

Which card?
I'll just like you to my comment elsewhere (today):
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1643302/gtx-680-...
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:29:16 PM

photonboy said:
3D not recommended in general:

To game in 3D requires a lot more processing. Even with a GTX680, most modern games can barely reach 60FPS at 1920x1080 once all the quality is at its highest.

If you game in 3D that 60FPS is down to 30FPS or else you have to reduce the quality. 3D or better graphics in 2D? The answer to me is an easy one.

I personally love gaming on my Dell 27" 2560x1440 monitor (though I game at 1920x1080 usually due to the performance hit. exceptions include games with small text/HUD like Diablo 3).

Which card?
I'll just like you to my comment elsewhere (today):
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-1643302/gtx-680-...


haha thats my thread and i updated my 680 choices for the 670 :??:  ooops lol.
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:31:17 PM

photonboy said:

If you game in 3D that 60FPS is down to 30FPS or else you have to reduce the quality. 3D or better graphics in 2D? The answer to me is an easy one.

Sure is. Barely noticable graphical improvements, or putting you into the game world? Thats an easy one. A 680 is plenty.

Thats not to say it doesn't have it's downsides, but if you are going to have a card that powerful why not put it to use.
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:33:58 PM

cookybiscuit said:
photonboy said:

If you game in 3D that 60FPS is down to 30FPS or else you have to reduce the quality. 3D or better graphics in 2D? The answer to me is an easy one.

Sure is. Barely noticable graphical improvements, or putting you into the game world? Thats an easy one. A 680 is plenty.

Thats not to say it doesn't have it's downsides, but if you are going to have a card that powerful why not put it to use.


true, do you have any non reference sugestions for a 680?
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:34:11 PM

I originally started with a single 680 at 1080p 3D gaming, and found 3D was worth far more than max settings. For starters, it is easy to turn off a few things in 3D, that don't add much and maybe even a detriment to 3D. DoF is not needed in 3D as it tries to create a 3D affect, so there is no point when you already get depth. AA is half as useful, as you get 2 images that mesh together, it is almost like having twice the resolution, the same can be said for textures, though I still like to use those at high when I can.

I'd honestly would take medium settings in 3D over Ultra in 2D, and I did for a while in some games like Metro 2033. I also always play at 60 FPS, so if you don't mind lower FPS, you might be able to up that some.
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:36:30 PM

bystander said:
I originally started with a single 680 at 1080p 3D gaming, and found 3D was worth far more than max settings. For starters, it is easy to turn off a few things in 3D, that don't add much and maybe even a detriment to 3D. DoF is not needed in 3D as it tries to create a 3D affect, so there is no point when you already get depth. AA is half as useful, as you get 2 images that mesh together, it is almost like having twice the resolution, the same can be said for textures, though I still like to use those at high when I can.

I'd honestly would take medium settings in 3D over Ultra in 2D, and I did for a while in some games like Metro 2033. I also always play at 60 FPS, so if you don't mind lower FPS, you might be able to up that some.


what card are u using?
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:38:13 PM

IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
I originally started with a single 680 at 1080p 3D gaming, and found 3D was worth far more than max settings. For starters, it is easy to turn off a few things in 3D, that don't add much and maybe even a detriment to 3D. DoF is not needed in 3D as it tries to create a 3D affect, so there is no point when you already get depth. AA is half as useful, as you get 2 images that mesh together, it is almost like having twice the resolution, the same can be said for textures, though I still like to use those at high when I can.

I'd honestly would take medium settings in 3D over Ultra in 2D, and I did for a while in some games like Metro 2033. I also always play at 60 FPS, so if you don't mind lower FPS, you might be able to up that some.


what card are u using?


That was with a single 680, I have two now, so I play most things near maxed in 3D.
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:42:09 PM

bystander said:
IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
I originally started with a single 680 at 1080p 3D gaming, and found 3D was worth far more than max settings. For starters, it is easy to turn off a few things in 3D, that don't add much and maybe even a detriment to 3D. DoF is not needed in 3D as it tries to create a 3D affect, so there is no point when you already get depth. AA is half as useful, as you get 2 images that mesh together, it is almost like having twice the resolution, the same can be said for textures, though I still like to use those at high when I can.

I'd honestly would take medium settings in 3D over Ultra in 2D, and I did for a while in some games like Metro 2033. I also always play at 60 FPS, so if you don't mind lower FPS, you might be able to up that some.


what card are u using?


That was with a single 680, I have two now, so I play most things near maxed in 3D.


hmm, well what model and brand
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:48:31 PM

I got mine early, when they were extremely tough to get and only reference models were available. I have an EVGA signature+. It's a good card, but you have better options today.
m
0
l
April 3, 2013 11:50:09 PM

bystander said:
I got mine early, when they were extremely tough to get and only reference models were available. I have an EVGA signature+. It's a good card, but you have better options today.


ohh jeez whats better than that one, well how bout what is the best gtx 680 around?
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 7:41:25 AM

IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
I got mine early, when they were extremely tough to get and only reference models were available. I have an EVGA signature+. It's a good card, but you have better options today.


ohh jeez whats better than that one, well how bout what is the best gtx 680 around?


I honestly do not know, as I haven't had a reason to look at specific models in a year.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 8:34:05 AM

Yah, it's true that some people have issues with it, and the best thing is to try it, but be aware, 3D Vision is not the same as 3D movies. It is far better, when the game supports it, so testing a 3D Vision capable game with 3D Vision is required. And beware of the common poster who calls it a gimmick or how awful 3D is, as most have never used 3D Vision to even know what it is like.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 9:10:43 PM

bystander said:
Yah, it's true that some people have issues with it, and the best thing is to try it, but be aware, 3D Vision is not the same as 3D movies. It is far better, when the game supports it, so testing a 3D Vision capable game with 3D Vision is required. And beware of the common poster who calls it a gimmick or how awful 3D is, as most have never used 3D Vision to even know what it is like.


i have been trying to test it but cant find a place that has a display model, only 3D tv's
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 9:13:45 PM

IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
Yah, it's true that some people have issues with it, and the best thing is to try it, but be aware, 3D Vision is not the same as 3D movies. It is far better, when the game supports it, so testing a 3D Vision capable game with 3D Vision is required. And beware of the common poster who calls it a gimmick or how awful 3D is, as most have never used 3D Vision to even know what it is like.


i have been trying to test it but cant find a place that has a display model, only 3D tv's


Well, 3D Vision looks a ton better, but you still may have found out something with the TV's. Did any of them give you a headache? That seems to be the main complaint if someone doesn't like it.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 9:19:08 PM

bystander said:
IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
Yah, it's true that some people have issues with it, and the best thing is to try it, but be aware, 3D Vision is not the same as 3D movies. It is far better, when the game supports it, so testing a 3D Vision capable game with 3D Vision is required. And beware of the common poster who calls it a gimmick or how awful 3D is, as most have never used 3D Vision to even know what it is like.


i have been trying to test it but cant find a place that has a display model, only 3D tv's


Well, 3D Vision looks a ton better, but you still may have found out something with the TV's. Did any of them give you a headache? That seems to be the main complaint if someone doesn't like it.


well i tryed but i think i broke the tv a best buy :( , i only looked for about 10 seconds and it dident look very good
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 10:37:12 PM

IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
Yah, it's true that some people have issues with it, and the best thing is to try it, but be aware, 3D Vision is not the same as 3D movies. It is far better, when the game supports it, so testing a 3D Vision capable game with 3D Vision is required. And beware of the common poster who calls it a gimmick or how awful 3D is, as most have never used 3D Vision to even know what it is like.


i have been trying to test it but cant find a place that has a display model, only 3D tv's


Well, 3D Vision looks a ton better, but you still may have found out something with the TV's. Did any of them give you a headache? That seems to be the main complaint if someone doesn't like it.


well i tryed but i think i broke the tv a best buy :( , i only looked for about 10 seconds and it dident look very good


That can be a problem if the system isn't setup well. Another issue can also occur due to people having different distances between their eyes, but there is a setting to adjust that (convergence). It sounds like you couldn't learn much.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 10:40:35 PM

bystander said:
IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
Yah, it's true that some people have issues with it, and the best thing is to try it, but be aware, 3D Vision is not the same as 3D movies. It is far better, when the game supports it, so testing a 3D Vision capable game with 3D Vision is required. And beware of the common poster who calls it a gimmick or how awful 3D is, as most have never used 3D Vision to even know what it is like.


i have been trying to test it but cant find a place that has a display model, only 3D tv's


Well, 3D Vision looks a ton better, but you still may have found out something with the TV's. Did any of them give you a headache? That seems to be the main complaint if someone doesn't like it.


well i tryed but i think i broke the tv a best buy :( , i only looked for about 10 seconds and it dident look very good


That can be a problem if the system isn't setup well. Another issue can also occur due to people having different distances between their eyes, but there is a setting to adjust that (convergence). It sounds like you couldn't learn much.


no i dident learn anything it almost put me off for 3D
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 10:43:33 PM

Let me ask you this. Are you also interested in 120hz gaming in 2D? If so, you might as well take the leap. You'll gain something from it, if not, then you may need to find some place to learn more about 3D Vision.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 10:45:56 PM

bystander said:
Let me ask you this. Are you also interested in 120hz gaming in 2D? If so, you might as well take the leap. You'll gain something from it, if not, then you may need to find some place to learn more about 3D Vision.


ya very much so, i really dont want a 60
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 11:13:04 PM

IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
Let me ask you this. Are you also interested in 120hz gaming in 2D? If so, you might as well take the leap. You'll gain something from it, if not, then you may need to find some place to learn more about 3D Vision.


ya very much so, i really dont want a 60


In that case, just pick a good 120hz 3D Vision 2 monitor. You'll get 120hz and a chance at liking 3D Vision.

Oh yeah, there is a 2nd benefit to the 3D Vision 2 monitors: http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/

Near 0 motion blur with lightboost on.
m
0
l
April 4, 2013 11:20:17 PM

bystander said:
IMASHERIFF said:
bystander said:
Let me ask you this. Are you also interested in 120hz gaming in 2D? If so, you might as well take the leap. You'll gain something from it, if not, then you may need to find some place to learn more about 3D Vision.


ya very much so, i really dont want a 60


In that case, just pick a good 120hz 3D Vision 2 monitor. You'll get 120hz and a chance at liking 3D Vision.

Oh yeah, there is a 2nd benefit to the 3D Vision 2 monitors: http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/

Near 0 motion blur with lightboost on.


wow jeez im am so gunna get one, but now im torn between the Gigabyte SOC 680 and the ASUS DCU2 TOP 680, any opinions?
m
0
l
August 14, 2013 3:55:59 PM

Having both a GTX card & ASUS 27" monitor with lightboost I can say it looks interesting when you look for it. However, after playing BF3 for 60 seconds you really don't notice it as much.

You can max out the 3D stereo depth, but the brain compensates to where its not really noticeable vs playing in 2D. Personally I think I'd better off if I had spent my cash on a 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor instead. Especially since I'm only gaming ~60% of the time.

This is a bit off topic, but it is also one more thing that can break.

m
0
l
August 14, 2013 4:12:28 PM

castl3bravo said:
Having both a GTX card & ASUS 27" monitor with lightboost I can say it looks interesting when you look for it. However, after playing BF3 for 60 seconds you really don't notice it as much.

You can max out the 3D stereo depth, but the brain compensates to where its not really noticeable vs playing in 2D. Personally I think I'd better off if I had spent my cash on a 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor instead. Especially since I'm only gaming ~60% of the time.

This is a bit off topic, but it is also one more thing that can break.


I feel bad for you.

Right click on desktop, go to Nvidia control panel, 'setup stereoscopic 3D', set keyboard shortcuts, enable advanced ingame settings.

Nvidia (stupidly) locks out convergence, you need this to make 3D even noticeable, Nvidia sets this at a 'safe' level in every game, dulling the 3D effect so everything is pushed to an unrealistic depth, as though your eyes were an inch apart. Also BF3 uses its own renderer and as such you need to use console commands to change the convergence, wouldn't bother with it BF3 is crap in 3D anyway.

Also this
http://helixmod.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/game-list-full.h...
m
0
l
August 14, 2013 4:30:12 PM

castl3bravo said:
Having both a GTX card & ASUS 27" monitor with lightboost I can say it looks interesting when you look for it. However, after playing BF3 for 60 seconds you really don't notice it as much.

You can max out the 3D stereo depth, but the brain compensates to where its not really noticeable vs playing in 2D. Personally I think I'd better off if I had spent my cash on a 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor instead. Especially since I'm only gaming ~60% of the time.

This is a bit off topic, but it is also one more thing that can break.


I find it hard to believe you can't notice it. Did you adjust the default depth setting in the Nvidia control panel? At default, it only has a 15% depth. If you want it to look in 3D, you need at least 50% or higher, and you also need to go to the keyboard shortcut section and add the convergence options so you can adjust how far or near objects appear.

Edit: seems cookybiscuit beat me to the same suggestions. You may or may not like 3D Vision, but you should definitely notice the effect.
m
0
l
August 14, 2013 4:52:25 PM

bystander said:
castl3bravo said:
Having both a GTX card & ASUS 27" monitor with lightboost I can say it looks interesting when you look for it. However, after playing BF3 for 60 seconds you really don't notice it as much.

You can max out the 3D stereo depth, but the brain compensates to where its not really noticeable vs playing in 2D. Personally I think I'd better off if I had spent my cash on a 27" IPS 2560x1440 monitor instead. Especially since I'm only gaming ~60% of the time.

This is a bit off topic, but it is also one more thing that can break.


I find it hard to believe you can't notice it. Did you adjust the default depth setting in the Nvidia control panel? At default, it only has a 15% depth. If you want it to look in 3D, you need at least 50% or higher, and you also need to go to the keyboard shortcut section and add the convergence options so you can adjust how far or near objects appear.

Edit: seems cookybiscuit beat me to the same suggestions. You may or may not like 3D Vision, but you should definitely notice the effect.


After 60 seconds in the middle of BF3, usually during confrontation, I don't really notice it that much even after I've turned the stereo depth way up. Just saying the "coolness" of 3D is just that for me. It doesn't really add anything to my gaming (it doesn't take away either).

I read the stuff regarding blur (after my post) and i'll be giving that a go when I get home. It would be a nice "side effect" if pressing control-T to turn off 3D while
"lightboost" remains on will improve my BF3 stats. I could always use that :) 
m
0
l
August 14, 2013 5:47:20 PM

Convergence and depth are different things. Convergence is the distance between the cameras, depth is maximum separation of objects in the distance. As I said, BF3 uses its own renderer so you cannot change convergence without console commands, hence the crappy 3D.

Try a different game and play with convergence.
m
0
l
January 14, 2014 10:13:32 PM

Update: i used the product twice
m
0
l
!