3D gaming choices

[joethetfrod]

Ok so my question to everyone is,

Do I get the HD7850 and the Samsung LED S27A950D

OR

Inequivalent Nvidia Card and the Asus VG278H

Ive read tons of reviews and im still split.

I would mostly like to hear from people that own these two monitors and use it for 3D gaming.

I dont really want a discussion on the Video card, the main point is gaining information about the Pros and Cons of 3D gaming in regards to these two monitors

Thanks Guys

Joe

 

[vitornob]

Fast answer:

AMD uses passive glasses, it's way cheaper but have lower final resolution (since the way passive glasses works you effectively will see half the resolution, example: if your display is a 1920x1080 one, you would play in a effective 960x1080 resolution). Usually have a brighter image.

Nvidia obviously is more expensive, but don't have the resolution problem. Using the original 3D Vision you could have some bright problems. Going to 3D Vision 2 shall diminish this problem. Another good thing is that Nvidia have years working in this tech so you could expect good support

 

[vitornob]

Comparative guide

Read the link, just ignore the 3D active glasses cons: 30fps only, since 3D Vision works with 120hz, so it supports 120fps, through it displays 60fps per eye.
So 3D Vision doesn't have this con

 

[bystander]

Fast answer:

AMD uses passive glasses, it's way cheaper but have lower final resolution (since the way passive glasses works you effectively will see half the resolution, example: if your display is a 1920x1080 one, you would play in a effective 960x1080 resolution). Usually have a brighter image.

Nvidia obviously is more expensive, but don't have the resolution problem. Using the original 3D Vision you could have some bright problems. Going to 3D Vision 2 shall diminish this problem. Another good thing is that Nvidia have years working in this tech so you could expect good support

The Samsung 950 he listed is NOT passive. It IS an active display. Look it up.

AMD's HD3D system is designed for active displays. However, they may also support passive displays, but that is not what the OP has selected.

Between the two, I'd go with the ASUS, but that also requires that you get an Nvidia card. While the Samsung is a great monitor for 120hz, it will be dark in 3D with the lack of light boost. Even my 3D Vision 1 monitor, which doesn't have lightboost (but has its own version), has a lot of reviewers on newegg who switched to it because the Samsung you listed was too dark in 3D.

 

[djscribbles]

+1 Bystander.
AMD isn't really either technology, it's display agnostic.

I have an S23A750D (essentially it's the same display from what I could tell, but older stand design, and smaller); it is darker in 3d mode, and it does occasionally bother me, but usually adjusting gamma slightly is sufficient to overcome the problem (or maybe the game was too dark in general), that said if you are picky about stuff like that then you may be unhappy with the AMD/Samsung path.

I personally went with AMD simply because I preferred their open approach over nVidia's proprietary system.

edit: Also worth noting, I have an HD7870 + i7-2700k paired with my setup, I wish I had gone for the 7950 because I'm fairly sure my GPU is bottlenecking me slightly at max settings (in Skyrim at least )

 

[bystander]

I might also add one more thought to consider. Since people tend to keep monitors for several computer builds, the choice of monitor will likely affect several future GPU upgrades. If you choose the Samsung, you'll be married to AMD until you upgrade the monitor. The same goes for the ASUS and Nvidia.

 

[joethetfrod]

Best answer selected by Joethetfrod.