Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

3D vs Surround

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 9, 2012 2:54:40 PM

I'm gonna execute and go ahead and try out Nvidia Surround. I need a monitor around 23" or 24" to buy 3 of for Nvidia Surround for my new rig i'm building. I need them to have a thin bezel, high quality but cheap, and from a reputable brand. Also, as a side question, would it be better to buy 2 more of my current monitor, or get 3 new ones? which would be cheaper and better quality?

my current monitor: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

More about : surround

a c 91 Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
April 9, 2012 3:21:47 PM

I don't know your budget so any monitor that aI syggest would be a guess if it's in you price range. If you are happy with the size of the bezel and the performance of the monitor that you have then the thing to do would be to get two more of the same. I did notice that the Samsung I linked here has a thin bezel but the price might be too high for you.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This monitor has a fast refrash rate and looks like a slim bezel and is extremely popular.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0
April 9, 2012 3:29:15 PM

inzone said:
I don't know your budget so any monitor that aI syggest would be a guess if it's in you price range. If you are happy with the size of the bezel and the performance of the monitor that you have then the thing to do would be to get two more of the same. I did notice that the Samsung I linked here has a thin bezel but the price might be too high for you.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

This monitor has a fast refrash rate and looks like a slim bezel and is extremely popular.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Sorry, knew i was forgeting something. My budget for each monitor is probably around 200, not exactly just around. And i'm not gonna bother paying for 3D, I was actually planning on originally getting 3D but everyone said it was a gimmick, so >_<

So the bezel on mine wouldn't be a nuisance you think?
Score
0
Related resources
April 12, 2012 6:10:30 AM

rocketracer said:
Sorry, knew i was forgeting something. My budget for each monitor is probably around 200, not exactly just around. And i'm not gonna bother paying for 3D, I was actually planning on originally getting 3D but everyone said it was a gimmick, so >_<

So the bezel on mine wouldn't be a nuisance you think?


bezels are definitely a nuisance. the Asus u have is one of the smaller bezels ive seen, but still take that bezel and multiply it by two and u get a huge gap inbetween screens that destroys immersion. ive been looking for a surround setup myself. Why cant they make a monitor without bezels, on the sides at least....
Score
0
April 12, 2012 4:13:34 PM

Swolern said:
bezels are definitely a nuisance. the Asus u have is one of the smaller bezels ive seen, but still take that bezel and multiply it by two and u get a huge gap inbetween screens that destroys immersion. ive been looking for a surround setup myself. Why cant they make a monitor without bezels, on the sides at least....

Well, i've read that people hardly notice them when using them, and plus you can hide on bezel behind another, so there is only one.
Score
0
April 13, 2012 12:20:44 PM

I know this is over ur budget, but these are the tiniest bezel 3monitor setup I've seen, but $1500 for setup, ouch. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXXSqce04fE
Im looking at the Korean 27in 2560x1440 for $350 each. These are an amazing price (reg @$900/ea)and rated very good quality. Bezels are bigger but the resolution oh my! 7680x1440 would be monstrous to run, lol.
Score
0
April 13, 2012 4:53:43 PM

Swolern said:
I know this is over ur budget, but these are the tiniest bezel 3monitor setup I've seen, but $1500 for setup, ouch. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXXSqce04fE
Im looking at the Korean 27in 2560x1440 for $350 each. These are an amazing price (reg @$900/ea)and rated very good quality. Bezels are bigger but the resolution oh my! 7680x1440 would be monstrous to run, lol.

what i find funny is that that monitor is made for eyefinity, but they still added bezels, lol. But yeah, if i did my math right, the native resolution for me would be 5760x1080..Not too shabby :D  and the price is amazing, I only need to buy 2 at $219 a pop, that only brings me to $359
Score
0
a c 91 Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
April 13, 2012 5:21:34 PM

The bezel can be an issue if they are overly large and would take away from the suround effect. Like you said you have a budget and the Samsung I had linked stated that it has the thinest bezel out there. The other thing with those Samsung monitors is that they are 120 hz refreash rate which is double most other monitors. Just because the monitor is capable of 3D doesn't mean you have to use it that way , I was looking at the monitor myself just because it was 120hz and did not specificly want to do 3D gaming.
I do think that there will be a monitor coming out that is three screens wide with no bezel , I saw it on you tube being demoed.

http://www.nordichardware.com/index.php?option=com_cont...
Score
0
April 13, 2012 5:34:11 PM

inzone said:
The bezel can be an issue if they are overly large and would take away from the suround effect. Like you said you have a budget and the Samsung I had linked stated that it has the thinest bezel out there. The other thing with those Samsung monitors is that they are 120 hz refreash rate which is double most other monitors. Just because the monitor is capable of 3D doesn't mean you have to use it that way , I was looking at the monitor myself just because it was 120hz and did not specificly want to do 3D gaming.
I do think that there will be a monitor coming out that is three screens wide with no bezel , I saw it on you tube being demoed.

http://www.nordichardware.com/index.php?option=com_cont...

Yeah well i was saying i didn't want to PAY for the extra 3D, but now that i think about it i guess your paying for the 120 and not the 3D.

And the thing with that monitor you posted is it seems like just a big monitor, and i believe with 3 different ones you get extra footage on the sides, with this one it just seems to be a bigger picture and works as a single monitor.

I was actually aiming for 3D at first, but i guess it hasn't taken off enough for it to be worth it, unless anyone would recommend getting it?
Score
0
a c 91 Î Nvidia
a b C Monitor
April 13, 2012 5:49:37 PM

There was someone on another post that was in a similar position and just wanted the 120hz and really wasn't interested in 3D but did get the monitor that was capable of 3D and one day tried it and became hooked on 3D gaming. So you never know if your going to like something untill you try it and I do think that the 3D gaming has a way to go yet before it would be considered a must have and totally acceptable performance wise. Just like HD was when it first came out and there was just very little HD content and now it's the standard and you don't even think about not having HD.
Score
0
April 13, 2012 6:47:14 PM

rocketracer said:
Yeah well i was saying i didn't want to PAY for the extra 3D, but now that i think about it i guess your paying for the 120 and not the 3D.

I was actually aiming for 3D at first, but i guess it hasn't taken off enough for it to be worth it, unless anyone would recommend getting it?


3d gaming is amazing. It really immerses you in the game world. Nvidia is huge in 3d and just about every game released these last few years has Nvidia software for 3d.

But 3d is also very demanding on the GPU. And unless you have endless amounts of money you need to pick one, either 3d or Nvidia surround. Because to run 5760x1080 in 3d you would need one of the most powerful PC out to play the current games at a good framerate. I've had 3d for a while. I don't use it as much as I use to. I'm switching over and gonna try Nvidia surround now.
Score
0
April 13, 2012 8:19:40 PM

Swolern said:
3d gaming is amazing. It really immerses you in the game world. Nvidia is huge in 3d and just about every game released these last few years has Nvidia software for 3d.

But 3d is also very demanding on the GPU. And unless you have endless amounts of money you need to pick one, either 3d or Nvidia surround. Because to run 5760x1080 in 3d you would need one of the most powerful PC out to play the current games at a good framerate. I've had 3d for a while. I don't use it as much as I use to. I'm switching over and gonna try Nvidia surround now.

Well, I guess it's Nvidia Surround for me too :p  you know, when i get some money :??:  Can't wait to play Arkham City with Physx and Surround..Om nom nom
Score
0
April 13, 2012 10:34:52 PM

rocketracer said:
Well, I guess it's Nvidia Surround for me too :p  you know, when i get some money :??:  Can't wait to play Arkham City with Physx and Surround..Om nom nom


Ya that's what I'm waiting to play Batman AC also. It's just too bada$$ of a game to experience it any other way than surrounding you in 3 screens. I don't know if I was clear on my last post. You have to have a pretty strong PC to run Nvidia surround also. 3d take twice the GPU power to run it due to making each frame twice. Nvidia takes 3 times the GPU power to run it because the GPU has to create 3x the pixels. Add them both together 3d surround and u need 5x the power, lol craziness.

What are your current PC specs?
Score
0
April 13, 2012 10:59:48 PM

Swolern said:
Ya that's what I'm waiting to play Batman AC also. It's just too bada$$ of a game to experience it any other way than surrounding you in 3 screens. I don't know if I was clear on my last post. You have to have a pretty strong PC to run Nvidia surround also. 3d take twice the GPU power to run it due to making each frame twice. Nvidia takes 3 times the GPU power to run it because the GPU has to create 3x the pixels. Add them both together 3d surround and u need 5x the power, lol craziness.

What are your current PC specs?

my current is a 5770 and a phenom ii x4. But the comp im building now is what im using the surround on, a 680 and a 3570k (IB), so i shouldn't have any problems running surround :D 
Score
0
April 14, 2012 12:24:49 AM

rocketracer said:
my current is a 5770 and a phenom ii x4. But the comp im building now is what im using the surround on, a 680 and a 3570k (IB), so i shouldn't have any problems running surround :D 


Nice build. I have a 680SLI rig. Some of the more graphically intense games are going to be tough to play at 5760x1080 with max settings. Just leave you an extra pic-e slot on ur motherboard (x8/x8 at least) and wait for the 4gb version 680 to release and you will be good. My 680SLI almost maxes out my VRAM at around 1960mb on Crysis 2 @ 1080p. I think 5760x1080 goes to about 2.6gb VRAM use so the 2gb versions won't cut it. I'm going to have to sell and upgrade my current 680s.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforce-gtx-680-sli-overc...
Score
0
April 14, 2012 12:44:58 AM

You will regret not going 3D.

3D > Surround all day every day.

Its not a gimmick, people who have never played metro 2033, BF3, Skyrim, or any of the other amazing games at 120hz in 3D call it a gimmick because untill you see it yourself all you have to go on is biased reviewers.
If u ask a person with a real 3D gaming system, they will tell you its the next thing in gaming. If someone is telling u its a gimmick, ask them about thier rig, 99% of the time its because there system was too weak, there monitor was crap, or they are just biased because they think the crap they see in IMAX 3d even compares to actual 3d gaming.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=209

go here for some real feed back and for some real testimonials

http://3dvision-blog.com/

here is another great site for info

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

this is my monitor backed by the rig in my sig. yes its pricey (no more so than x3 $200 monitors) but it has been the best purchase i have made in regards to computers since i built my first rig 10 years ago, it truly has changed gaming for me.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 1:54:11 AM

sp0nger said:
You will regret not going 3D.

3D > Surround all day every day.

Its not a gimmick, people who have never played metro 2033, BF3, Skyrim, or any of the other amazing games at 120hz in 3D call it a gimmick because untill you see it yourself all you have to go on is biased reviewers.
If u ask a person with a real 3D gaming system, they will tell you its the next thing in gaming. If someone is telling u its a gimmick, ask them about thier rig, 99% of the time its because there system was too weak, there monitor was crap, or they are just biased because they think the crap they see in IMAX 3d even compares to actual 3d gaming.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=209

go here for some real feed back and for some real testimonials

http://3dvision-blog.com/

here is another great site for info

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

this is my monitor backed by the rig in my sig. yes its pricey (no more so than x3 $200 monitors) but it has been the best purchase i have made in regards to computers since i built my first rig 10 years ago, it truly has changed gaming for me.

Ok, ok, but since you say that people who never used 3D call it a gimmick, have you ever used Surround to back up saying 3D is better?

btw, you guys suck, as soon as i think i figure out which to get you say the other is better :p 
Score
0
April 14, 2012 5:24:26 AM

LOL. Everyone has their own opinions and preferences dude. Its your money. You have to figure out what you like. Dont get me wrong, I believe the route towards 3d is the future of gaming for sure(eventually hologram). When 3d is done right it looks as if u are in the gaming world, it can look like ur monitor is 10ft deep and bullets or particles are coming out of the monitor at u. Its great.3d just has to get over some hurdles first. First the glasses. Glasses-free 3d needs to become mainstream and cheaper. 2nd when playing in 3d i had to turn down the graphic settings a lot to play 3d and still the framerate was choppier than the 60fps im use to(but even more with surround). That was something i was unwilling to sacrifice. 3rd, first person shooters are my favorite game, BF3 is da $hit! 3d does not work well in fast paced competitive multiplayer gaming where quick turns are necessary (3d single player is great) . Simply put quick turns in 3d give you a headache! And ive been playing with 3d for a couple years now. But other slower paced games it works amazingly well. Best in racing games in my opinion, where there is more movement forward and less lateral which causes headaches over long periods of time.

Ill try to put it like this 3d gaming is more of the gaming world behind and in front of the screen. Surround is more of the gaming world to the left and right of the screen. Both amazing, each one can work better depending on the game. So if u got the extra cash go for both 3d and surround, three 120Hz 3d screens. And you will be able to choose which one to use depending which game you are playing. If u aint got that kind of cash try to go look at a 3d vs surround display of your type of game at a store or friends house to make the decision.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 2:53:11 PM

Swolern said:
LOL. Everyone has their own opinions and preferences dude. Its your money. You have to figure out what you like. Dont get me wrong, I believe the route towards 3d is the future of gaming for sure(eventually hologram). When 3d is done right it looks as if u are in the gaming world, it can look like ur monitor is 10ft deep and bullets or particles are coming out of the monitor at u. Its great.3d just has to get over some hurdles first. First the glasses. Glasses-free 3d needs to become mainstream and cheaper. 2nd when playing in 3d i had to turn down the graphic settings a lot to play 3d and still the framerate was choppier than the 60fps im use to(but even more with surround). That was something i was unwilling to sacrifice. 3rd, first person shooters are my favorite game, BF3 is da $hit! 3d does not work well in fast paced competitive multiplayer gaming where quick turns are necessary (3d single player is great) . Simply put quick turns in 3d give you a headache! And ive been playing with 3d for a couple years now. But other slower paced games it works amazingly well. Best in racing games in my opinion, where there is more movement forward and less lateral which causes headaches over long periods of time.

Ill try to put it like this 3d gaming is more of the gaming world behind and in front of the screen. Surround is more of the gaming world to the left and right of the screen. Both amazing, each one can work better depending on the game. So if u got the extra cash go for both 3d and surround, three 120Hz 3d screens. And you will be able to choose which one to use depending which game you are playing. If u aint got that kind of cash try to go look at a 3d vs surround display of your type of game at a store or friends house to make the decision.

Well, i'm not made of money...And I don't know anyone with 3D nor Surround that i know of..And i'll have to check and see if best buy has it, but i'll probably end up getting Surround since its almost half the cost : P You guys must be some kind of rich ;) 
Score
0
April 14, 2012 3:38:32 PM

Best buy wont have those type of high-end setups. U have to go to computer oriented store. Microcenter & Frys have them around me.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 3:50:26 PM

Swolern said:
LOL. Everyone has their own opinions and preferences dude. Its your money. You have to figure out what you like. Dont get me wrong, I believe the route towards 3d is the future of gaming for sure(eventually hologram). When 3d is done right it looks as if u are in the gaming world, it can look like ur monitor is 10ft deep and bullets or particles are coming out of the monitor at u. Its great.3d just has to get over some hurdles first. First the glasses. Glasses-free 3d needs to become mainstream and cheaper. 2nd when playing in 3d i had to turn down the graphic settings a lot to play 3d and still the framerate was choppier than the 60fps im use to(but even more with surround). That was something i was unwilling to sacrifice. 3rd, first person shooters are my favorite game, BF3 is da $hit! 3d does not work well in fast paced competitive multiplayer gaming where quick turns are necessary (3d single player is great) . Simply put quick turns in 3d give you a headache! And ive been playing with 3d for a couple years now. But other slower paced games it works amazingly well. Best in racing games in my opinion, where there is more movement forward and less lateral which causes headaches over long periods of time.

Ill try to put it like this 3d gaming is more of the gaming world behind and in front of the screen. Surround is more of the gaming world to the left and right of the screen. Both amazing, each one can work better depending on the game. So if u got the extra cash go for both 3d and surround, three 120Hz 3d screens. And you will be able to choose which one to use depending which game you are playing. If u aint got that kind of cash try to go look at a 3d vs surround display of your type of game at a store or friends house to make the decision.



i agree and disagree with some of your points

I agree that 3D in multiplayer can be disorienting in some situations. For the most part however, i feel that i do not suffer from the headaches cause by quick left/right movements that you suffer from. however, i think you problems with multiplayer in 3D in regards to BF3 is due to in game limitations, and not 3D itself.

You can find further information on the BF3 limitations here http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?s=84d459bc6fbd3df667...

this is one scenario where surround gaming can be beneficial, it helps in playing mutliplayer because it adds to your peripheral vision. I do not think that this small advantage even compares to the immersiveness of playing in 3D. I still play multiplayer in 3D, there is nothing like flying a jet in BF3 in 3D, diving your jet watching the ground scream towards you, pulling up just above the deck flying between buildings, raining down fire from your A10 warthog while the tracers descend from your heads up display in your face down into the screen bursting a tank in flames.

And while i do agree that 3D can cause headaches, at first. Your eyes will adjust to playing in 3D i used to get headaches after long sessions, now i can turn the 3D to max and never get a headache. Also having the best hardware helps to avoid ghosting and other problems like lack of light boost technology. you absolutely need 120hz


OP, my last rig was surround, i do miss it a bit, but i would never give up 3D for it (or go back to AMD for that matter). Plus ill just get 2 more 3D monitors eventualy and play in 3D surround, which will be from what ive heard, AMAAAZZZINGG

also OP that monitor i showed u i bought for $600, it has gone up in price because people oviously will still buy it for $700.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 4:00:07 PM

Dont ever buy your stuff from a retail store other then FRYs electronics and Microcenter

you WILL over pay

just buy newegg.com, they have never let me down
Score
0
April 14, 2012 4:02:34 PM

sp0nger said:
Dont ever buy your stuff from a retail store other then FRYs electronics and Microcenter

you WILL over pay

just buy newegg.com, they have never let me down

He wasn't saying BUY from them, we was saying test out 3D/Surround at them. But i checked and they have none in florida >_< sucks.

And i'm actually starting to lean towards 3D now, after looking up some stuff...Still, 700 bucks for a monitor is alot..could buy another graphics card for that : P
Score
0
April 14, 2012 5:02:25 PM

rocketracer said:
He wasn't saying BUY from them, we was saying test out 3D/Surround at them. But i checked and they have none in florida >_< sucks.

And i'm actually starting to lean towards 3D now, after looking up some stuff...Still, 700 bucks for a monitor is alot..could buy another graphics card for that : P



Oh ok to try out, yeah unfortunately to see real 3D gaming you kinda just gota jump in head first and hope the water feels nice. I have never seen a proper 3D setup on display even at frys or microcenter. I too was super nervous about spending that much money on a monitor. Im not rich, i had to save. But that first level in metro2033 my jaw dropped and i was like WOORRTTHHH IT!


If your looking at the monitor i showed you. I wouldnt buy it at that price point, when i bought mine it was $700 the week before and then it dropped to $650 w/ free shipping so i bought it (compared to amazons and other sites $600.00 w/ charged shipping). Mine came in perfect condition.

Also, i wanted 27" cause the xtra real estate really helps with 3D. However, if you reallllly dont want to pay that much. Asus first generation 3D monitor is still one of the best in class 3D monitors at a much better price point (nvidia 3D vision 1st gen non LED non lightboost). I still highly recommend saving up a bit xtra for the newest one tho. What ever you do stay away from acer

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Score
0
April 14, 2012 5:18:14 PM

Agreed with sp0nger BF3 in a jet or heli is awesome. It feels like ur in the cockpit. The 3d ground infantry is what I don't like. For me Im buying a new display setup. I found an amazing deal on 3 2560x1440 27in monitors for $350/each. That high resolution is so crystal clear. 3 27in 3d displays would be twice as much. And the problem with 3d surround is the 3d is only through the glasses and your peripheral vision outside of glasses would be blocked by glasses or double vision. I'll go back to 3d in a few years when the technology is better and glasses-less. 3d surround glasses-less! Wow just got goose bumps.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 5:31:37 PM

Swolern said:
Agreed with sp0nger BF3 in a jet or heli is awesome. It feels like ur in the cockpit. The 3d ground infantry is what I don't like. For me Im buying a new display setup. I found an amazing deal on 3 2560x1440 27in monitors for $350/each. That high resolution is so crystal clear. 3 27in 3d displays would be twice as much. And the problem with 3d surround is the 3d is only through the glasses and your peripheral vision outside of glasses would be blocked by glasses or double vision. I'll go back to 3d in a few years when the technology is better and glasses-less. 3d surround glasses-less! Wow just got goose bumps.

Well, let me know how you like Surround..It'd be nice to get more opinions : P
Score
0
April 14, 2012 5:42:58 PM

Swolern said:
Agreed with sp0nger BF3 in a jet or heli is awesome. It feels like ur in the cockpit. The 3d ground infantry is what I don't like. For me Im buying a new display setup. I found an amazing deal on 3 2560x1440 27in monitors for $350/each. That high resolution is so crystal clear. 3 27in 3d displays would be twice as much. And the problem with 3d surround is the 3d is only through the glasses and your peripheral vision outside of glasses would be blocked by glasses or double vision. I'll go back to 3d in a few years when the technology is better and glasses-less. 3d surround glasses-less! Wow just got goose bumps.



I too play as a ground soldier in 2D so i agree. like i said before surround is probably better for multiplayer. And if i could afford that high of a resolution monitor x3 for surround, that would be a hard decisions to make against 3D. 3D shines in single player environments.

I would love to have a monitor at that resolution but i cant afford to buy the hardware to support it. The reason i dont care one way or another is that when i had a surround rig, all it did was add more of the same (granted this was only at 1080p). My graphics didnt improve and it was just seeing more of the same. W/ 3D it added something more, it wasnt just adding more of the same, it was like looking at something new.

And as far as 3D surround goes, there are a bunch of people w/ 3D surround set ups that dont have problems wearing the glasses in regards to peripheral vision. Personally the glasses dont bother me, would i prefer to not have to wear them? sure, but i dont think its worth waiting 5 years for that technology to become mainstream.
Score
0
a c 80 Î Nvidia
a c 128 C Monitor
April 14, 2012 5:52:11 PM

If you go 3D vision, which I do not regret one bit, as it is very good for gaming, you'll want this link: http://helixmod.wikispot.org/gamelist

The one big draw back of 3D vision is a lot of games don't work well with it. I'd guess about 1/3 of the games I'd play support it. However, that link has some fixes for other games by the modder Helix. He also has a tool on his page for fixing your own games.

From what I see, those who have used 2D surround, and those who have used 3D vision, have all enjoyed their experiences a lot. I don't think you'd go wrong either way. I chose 3D vision, or rather 120hz (and found I loved 3D vision after), because you gain benefits in a lot of different ways. If 3D doesn't work, you get smooth game play with 120hz. If the game is too demanding for your graphics settings, it's easier to still max out the settings at 1080p and when 3D vision works, it's amazing.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 5:53:38 PM

@ sp0nger ya I have GTX 680SLI right now. I think I'm going to have to go tri-SLI with that high of resolution, but waiting for 4gb versions to release.
Score
0
April 14, 2012 10:55:38 PM

I'm actually considering a 3D surround build..But i can't find a monitor with good reviews around 23" to 24"
Score
0
April 15, 2012 12:40:06 AM

@Swolern thats pretty sweet, i just SLIied my GTX 580 so that i could turn up the AA on my 3D rig. Yeah i would definitely say your vRam is going to be the biggest limitation on a build w/ that big a resolution.


Thats another thing OP, both 3D and surround are performance hogs. I dont know what your running but my rig is in my sig (i have x2 gtx 580's now). As a comparison to what ever your running, my 1 gtx 580 (overclocked to 900mhz) was able to max out metro 2033, BF3 at ultra detail but i had to run lower AA or run FXAA as anything above 4x MSAA was too much for my system to handle. Now that i have 2 of them tho i can max everything out.


I think your going to be hard pressed to put together a 3D surround build at a reasonable price with out sacrificing quality

Like i said before, a bad monitor will make 3D a horrible experience. Its in your best bet to get either of the ASUS monitors i showed you as they are the highest rated among the 3D community. Also, why not make a post on Nvidia 3d vision forums? im sure everyone their can chime in on their set up, how well they work, how much they payed, etc...

If theres anything ive learned, its better to go slow and put things together gradually w/ the best quality than it is to rush into something getting everything at once but then being stuck with a less than top notch setup. Unless your rich and you just buy that shizzz lol
Score
0
April 15, 2012 12:34:52 PM

iHey I thought I'd chime in because I was in the same position as you earlier. Ive got a liquid cooled rig with 2 gtx 580s and had decided I wanted to either splurge on getting surround or 3d to push the cards further. After much research, I decided that while surround is nice, the bezels would throw me off (after testing them at a friends) and it felt a little weird.
I decided to go ahead and buy the new BenQ XL2420TX 24 inch 120hz 3d gaming monitor with lightboost (like the Asus mentioned earlier but at 24 inches because I feel that 27 inches 1080p isn't as crisp as i'd like it to be). The monitor has great reviews (you need to look for the XL2420T reviews because the TX hasnt been reviewed yet, only difference between them is a built in IR transmitter and ability to hook up your ps3 to use 3d as well), and at 500 bucks its a lot cheaper than the ASUS alternative (you can also get 50 bucks off it from their online store if you search for a promotion code on google making it 450 bucks). I haven't received it yet (should get it next week), but from what i've read it's supposed to be an amazing screen. Frankly you get more out of going this route i feel because even if you end up not liking 3d, 120 hz for gaming is amazing, you should at least go and test out 3d/120hz somewhere before you make a choice. My suggestion though stays with 3d.

Rockettracer take a look at the BenQ XL2420TX, it fits right into what you're looking for.
Score
0
April 15, 2012 2:51:00 PM

scopey86 said:
iHey I thought I'd chime in because I was in the same position as you earlier. Ive got a liquid cooled rig with 2 gtx 580s and had decided I wanted to either splurge on getting surround or 3d to push the cards further. After much research, I decided that while surround is nice, the bezels would throw me off (after testing them at a friends) and it felt a little weird.
I decided to go ahead and buy the new BenQ XL2420TX 24 inch 120hz 3d gaming monitor with lightboost (like the Asus mentioned earlier but at 24 inches because I feel that 27 inches 1080p isn't as crisp as i'd like it to be). The monitor has great reviews (you need to look for the XL2420T reviews because the TX hasnt been reviewed yet, only difference between them is a built in IR transmitter and ability to hook up your ps3 to use 3d as well), and at 500 bucks its a lot cheaper than the ASUS alternative (you can also get 50 bucks off it from their online store if you search for a promotion code on google making it 450 bucks). I haven't received it yet (should get it next week), but from what i've read it's supposed to be an amazing screen. Frankly you get more out of going this route i feel because even if you end up not liking 3d, 120 hz for gaming is amazing, you should at least go and test out 3d/120hz somewhere before you make a choice. My suggestion though stays with 3d.

Rockettracer take a look at the BenQ XL2420TX, it fits right into what you're looking for.

Thanks, but i can't seem to find the monitor for sale anywhere :\

EDIT: Nvm, I have to buy it directly from them. I'll have to decide which monitor to get...Let me know how you like it when you get yours :p 
Score
0
April 15, 2012 6:12:53 PM

When it comes to getting a 3d vision 2 monitor, there's only 3 real options (4 if you include the two different benq models but I'll get into that later): the 27 inch Asus mentioned earlier, the BenQ XL2420TX / XL2420T which are both 24 inch, and I believe one by Acer that's also 27 inch. All of the monitors have a max resolution of 1920x1080. Personally I've used a 1080p 27inch monitor before, and the big screen is really nice, but a) they're really pricy at around 700 USD and b) that big a screen size with only 1080p is a bit of a waste, and can make certain games look jagged because of the low ppi. If that does not deter you, I'd definitely take the Asus model, as it is one of the highest rated monitors out there in the 3d category.

The 2 BenQ models are essentially identical except for a) the TX model comes with 3d vision 2 glasses (this may have changed and they may both now come with glasses) b) built in IR transmitter and c) HDMI 1.4a or whatever it is that allows you to plug in a PS3 for 3d gaming as well. As a result, the TX model is USD100 more, but at $500 its still cheaper than any other 3d vision 2 capable (read: Lightboost) monitor. I researched for nearly a month before I went ahead and ordered the BenQ, and I honestly am pretty optimistic about it. I should get it next week and I'll let you know how it is.

Going back to your original question. IF you decide to go for nvidia surround, there's another option that you can consider: the Yamasaki Catleap. Long story short, it uses the same high quality IPS displays found in the 27 inch Dell and Apple iMac's (which means 2560 resolution) at a fraction of the cost because they come with no OSD or extras. They also support overclocking to at least 100hz, which means you'll still get a much higher refresh rate. The beauty of it is they can be had for around 400 USD, which puts it at the best bang for buck of anything. If you'd like to learn more about it I suggest you read it over here:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232084/yamakasi-catleap-q27...
Score
0
April 15, 2012 7:46:05 PM

scopey86 said:
When it comes to getting a 3d vision 2 monitor, there's only 3 real options (4 if you include the two different benq models but I'll get into that later): the 27 inch Asus mentioned earlier, the BenQ XL2420TX / XL2420T which are both 24 inch, and I believe one by Acer that's also 27 inch. All of the monitors have a max resolution of 1920x1080. Personally I've used a 1080p 27inch monitor before, and the big screen is really nice, but a) they're really pricy at around 700 USD and b) that big a screen size with only 1080p is a bit of a waste, and can make certain games look jagged because of the low ppi. If that does not deter you, I'd definitely take the Asus model, as it is one of the highest rated monitors out there in the 3d category.

The 2 BenQ models are essentially identical except for a) the TX model comes with 3d vision 2 glasses (this may have changed and they may both now come with glasses) b) built in IR transmitter and c) HDMI 1.4a or whatever it is that allows you to plug in a PS3 for 3d gaming as well. As a result, the TX model is USD100 more, but at $500 its still cheaper than any other 3d vision 2 capable (read: Lightboost) monitor. I researched for nearly a month before I went ahead and ordered the BenQ, and I honestly am pretty optimistic about it. I should get it next week and I'll let you know how it is.

Going back to your original question. IF you decide to go for nvidia surround, there's another option that you can consider: the Yamasaki Catleap. Long story short, it uses the same high quality IPS displays found in the 27 inch Dell and Apple iMac's (which means 2560 resolution) at a fraction of the cost because they come with no OSD or extras. They also support overclocking to at least 100hz, which means you'll still get a much higher refresh rate. The beauty of it is they can be had for around 400 USD, which puts it at the best bang for buck of anything. If you'd like to learn more about it I suggest you read it over here:
http://www.overclock.net/t/1232084/yamakasi-catleap-q27...

Yeah well since i made this post everyone convinced me of 3D, funny how quickly i changed my mind > _ >

Well i won't be buying the monitor until i build the rest of my computer at the moment, so it'd be interesting to hear how you like it to help my decision :) 
Score
0
April 17, 2012 12:41:52 AM

Btw Sp0nger, just found the 27" on amazon for about 50 bucks less, sweetness :D  i guess im plunging in to 3D...Still hope i'm not missing too much with Surround :\
Score
0
April 17, 2012 2:08:38 AM

rocketracer said:
Btw Sp0nger, just found the 27" on amazon for about 50 bucks less, sweetness :D  i guess im plunging in to 3D...Still hope i'm not missing too much with Surround :\


Which one the Asus VG278H for $650? Btw have you even seen 3d gaming before via PC, ps3, or Xbox?
Score
0
April 17, 2012 2:10:28 AM

Swolern said:
Which one the Asus VG278H for $650? Btw have you even seen 3d gaming before via PC, ps3, or Xbox?

Yeah that one. and Nope, the only 3D i've ever seen in my life is at the movies like once : P Thats why im so nervous
Score
0
a c 80 Î Nvidia
a c 128 C Monitor
April 17, 2012 2:17:31 AM

You'll be surprised to see that 3D in games is far better than in movies, at least for the games that work well with it. Games that I find play near flawlessly with it are Crysis 2, The Witcher 2 (reduced settings due to demanding graphics), Skyrim is great after Helix fix (link in previous post), Titan Quest, Metro 2033, Torchlight, StarCraft II, Kingdoms of Amalur with Helix mod, and a few others that haven't come to mind.
Score
0
April 17, 2012 2:19:04 AM

bystander said:
You'll be surprised to see that 3D in games is far better than in movies, at least for the games that work well with it. Games that I find play near flawlessly with it are Crysis 2, The Witcher 2 (reduced settings due to demanding graphics), Skyrim is great after Helix fix (link in previous post), Titan Quest, Metro 2033, Torchlight, StarCraft II, Kingdoms of Amalur with Helix mod, and a few others that haven't come to mind.

Yeah but my problem is is it more immersive than a surround setup? have you ever had a surround setup? That's my problem, deciding between the two >_< So much money, wanna make sure i make the right decision :p 

And yeah, in the movies (atleast ones i've seen in 3D: Alice in Wonderland) all it did was bring the entire image out of the screen SLIGHTLY and thats it, nothing really popped. the only cool thing is the previews before the movie in 3D that really pop out of the screen, and im sitting there thinking i wish the movie was more like that.
Score
0
a c 80 Î Nvidia
a c 128 C Monitor
April 17, 2012 2:44:31 AM

Well, I haven't really done a lot of Surround other than what I've seen at my local Fry's and when I set it up for a few minutes with the wrong sized monitors on the side of my 3D monitor. From what I've seen, I prefer 3D Vision.
Score
0
a c 80 Î Nvidia
a c 128 C Monitor
April 17, 2012 2:45:43 AM

Oh, before I forget, be sure to setup the advanced hotkeys and increase the depth when you set it up. Learn how to adjust convergence. Between Depth and convergence you have all that is needed to make things pop.
Score
0
April 17, 2012 2:47:59 AM

rocketracer said:
Yeah that one. and Nope, the only 3D i've ever seen in my life is at the movies like once : P Thats why im so nervous


Oh man your in for a shocker! :o  When 3d is done right it can look like there is a real miniature world sitting right there on your desktop. Literally! 3d Movies cant come close to the 3d gaming experience. I remember playing Avatar in 3d. There is a part where u fly on a dragon and control it. During times the dragon pops out of the screen. It actually looks like there is a real miniature dragon flapping its wings right in front of your face, and it looks as if you can reach and touch the dragon and hold it in your hands, simply amazing! Racing games give you extreme depth. You can actually tell how far an object or turn is away from you so you can judge your timing accordingly. The 3d gives you a sense of real life speed that gives u a adrenaline rush.

Damn all this talk of 3d has me pumped! :sol:  I just canceled my 7680x1440 monitor setup and thinking about 3d surround now. I'm going to think about it for a few weeks before I make my decision.
Score
0
April 17, 2012 3:02:41 AM

rocketracer said:
Yeah but my problem is is it more immersive than a surround setup? have you ever had a surround setup? That's my problem, deciding between the two >_< So much money, wanna make sure i make the right decision :p 

And yeah, in the movies (atleast ones i've seen in 3D: Alice in Wonderland) all it did was bring the entire image out of the screen SLIGHTLY and thats it, nothing really popped. the only cool thing is the previews before the movie in 3D that really pop out of the screen, and im sitting there thinking i wish the movie was more like that.


If you want immersion there is no doubt 3d is the way you will want to go. I'd say surround just adds more screen area to be able to see more of the virtual world at once. That would give you an advantage in online multiplayer, to see your flanks without having to turn your character. And that is where 3d has its weakness, online competative first person shooters. Hard choices, I know......

Btw Alice in Wonderland was a post conversion film and was not filmed with 3d cameras like Avatar. Post conversion 3d sucks.
Score
0
April 17, 2012 3:29:27 AM

Swolern said:
Oh man your in for a shocker! :o  When 3d is done right it can look like there is a real miniature world sitting right there on your desktop. Literally! 3d Movies cant come close to the 3d gaming experience. I remember playing Avatar in 3d. There is a part where u fly on a dragon and control it. During times the dragon pops out of the screen. It actually looks like there is a real miniature dragon flapping its wings right in front of your face, and it looks as if you can reach and touch the dragon and hold it in your hands, simply amazing! Racing games give you extreme depth. You can actually tell how far an object or turn is away from you so you can judge your timing accordingly. The 3d gives you a sense of real life speed that gives u a adrenaline rush.

Damn all this talk of 3d has me pumped! :sol:  I just canceled my 7680x1440 monitor setup and thinking about 3d surround now. I'm going to think about it for a few weeks before I make my decision.

Lol, i know right. I'm pumped too :D  I heard spiderman 3 was amazing in 3D. And 3D surround takes ALOT of power and money. 3 24" 3D monitors is 1500
Score
0
April 17, 2012 4:00:01 AM

rocketracer said:
Lol, i know right. I'm pumped too :D  I heard spiderman 3 was amazing in 3D. And 3D surround takes ALOT of power and money. 3 24" 3D monitors is 1500


Ya my wife would definitely be pissed. LOL
Score
0
April 17, 2012 4:15:09 AM

Just installed Half-life 2 episode 1 to give a kick... totally awesome first level, it was like being on a roller coaster innnnnn 3333333DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Score
0
a c 80 Î Nvidia
a c 128 C Monitor
April 17, 2012 4:24:23 AM

I've been quite surprised at how many people on this forum are showing positive reviews on 3D. I'm definitely a believer, but even a year ago, this post would be full of non-believers (who have never used it mind you).

I'm currently fixated with Crysis 2 in 3D Vision atm.
Score
0
April 17, 2012 4:58:44 AM

Can't wait to play Arkham City and Just Cause 2. We should start a "Favorite 3D Game" thread :p  Does anyone know if RCT3 has 3D Vision? That would be sick
Score
0
April 17, 2012 10:23:40 AM

bystander said:
I've been quite surprised at how many people on this forum are showing positive reviews on 3D. I'm definitely a believer, but even a year ago, this post would be full of non-believers (who have never used it mind you).

I'm currently fixated with Crysis 2 in 3D Vision atm.


Well everyones take on 3d is different. But people either love it or hate it. Some people are just sensitive to 3d that can cause headaches and even nausea. Other people have different eye abnormalities that makes them unable to even see the 3d depth perception. Sucks for them. Make sure ur not one of them b4 you invest OP.

Btw I would like to see 3d hurry up and advance. First glasses-less displays. Then some interaction with 3d camera technology like Kinect that would enable actual physical hand manipulation and or interaction of virtual objects that are displayed out of screen. Or even Sony's VR 3d glasses make it. Give me something! 3d gaming has been out for how long? Active glasses have been mainstreamed 5 years? (Passive and anaglyph 3d for much longer).And the only improvement has been a brighter display. But at least 3d graphics design software is much better than it use to be. My 2cents.
Score
0
!