Closed Solved

3D 1080p GPU?

I'm getting the AMD radeon HD 7970 and will it be enough to run games in 3D?
For what I know is that I have the 6870 (1080p, not 3D) which runs high on BF3 at 40ish FPS, which the 7870 is about x2 that.
19 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about 1080p
  1. Do you have a 3D monitor already? I wouldn't advice getting an AMD card for 3D gaming unless you already have AMD certified HD3D monitor.
  2. Sunius said:
    Do you have a 3D monitor already? I wouldn't advice getting an AMD card for 3D gaming unless you already have AMD certified HD3D monitor.

    No, I'm getting AMD for the best for what I have for my money. My other choice was a GTX 680 which I did not want to buy a 2GB graphics card.
    How about you make that const int a pointer now huh? Also you put it as a float not a int.
  3. I believe as an integer that would become 1. Which is the square root of 1. Which looks less clever I suppose :-) I have always been curious though - why that avatar?
  4. bc5 said:
    I believe as an integer that would become 1. Which is the square root of 1. Which looks less clever I suppose :-) I have always been curious though - why that avatar?

    According to C++ it would be one, probably because it's closer to 1 then 2;
  5. Well I think pretty much any language is gonna round the number to the nearest - Python, PHP, anything. They have to really. You code?
  6. Don't buy AMD for 3D. Nvidia has the best 3D Technologies.
  7. lostgamer_03 said:
    Don't buy AMD for 3D. Nvidia has the best 3D Technologies.

    I don't want to buy NVIDIA just answer.
  8. lostgamer_03 said:
    Don't buy AMD for 3D. Nvidia has the best 3D Technologies.


    +1 to that. I don't think you'll need to worry about 2GB being insufficient for a long time yet.
  9. bc5 said:
    +1 to that. I don't think you'll need to worry about 2GB being insufficient for a long time yet.

    Gosh, just answer.
  10. We don't work for you. Don't tell us to answer. Gosh :-P
  11. I'm giving you my advice? Radeon 7970 is a great GPU, but GTX 680 is way ahead when it comes to 3D.

    It might workout, but there is better solutions.
  12. My single GTX 570 was running 3D on my Vizio 47inch TV. It would only run at 720p which was half the resolution I was used to playing. I believe it was the TV's limitations though. It was running on the hotter side in BF3. I only played like that for a little bit cause BF3 in 3D did look AMAZING!!!!!!! but my K/D was suffering cause I couldn't play competitively at that resolution, and I was too busy most of the time checking out the graphics.

    My experience w/ 3D gaming is that it does look AMAZING!!! but nothing is precise. so you will be absolutely 500% amazed at how awesome it is to run into a room w/ a shotty and take care of business, but you won't be able to hit anyone at any distance, due to the 2 separate images to each eye is off center. In other words, there is no center view of anything. There is what things look like from slightly to the right and slightly to the left of what you are looking at and you have to kind of put whatever you was the center of the cross hairs to be in between both views... I'm sure it's better at full HD 3D, but will prly still be apparent.

    tl;dr
    It will prly run stereoscopic 3D on the hotter side, maybe not at highest settings, but it should run okay.
  13. lostgamer_03 said:
    I'm giving you my advice? Radeon 7970 is a great GPU, but GTX 680 is way ahead when it comes to 3D.

    It might workout, but there is better solutions.

    Well, would the GPU be good enough that's all I'm asking. I don't care about HD3D vs NVIDIA 3D.
  14. ittimjones said:
    My single GTX 570 was running 3D on my Vizio 47inch TV. It would only run at 720p which was half the resolution I was used to playing. I believe it was the TV's limitations though. It was running on the hotter side in BF3. I only played like that for a little bit cause BF3 in 3D did look AMAZING!!!!!!! but my K/D was suffering cause I couldn't play competitively at that resolution, and I was too busy most of the time checking out the graphics.

    My experience w/ 3D gaming is that it does look AMAZING!!! but nothing is precise. so you will be absolutely 500% amazed at how awesome it is to run into a room w/ a shotty and take care of business, but you won't be able to hit anyone at any distance, due to the 2 separate images to each eye is off center. In other words, there is no center view of anything. There is what things look like from slightly to the right and slightly to the left of what you are looking at and you have to kind of put whatever you was the center of the cross hairs to be in between both views... I'm sure it's better at full HD 3D, but will prly still be apparent.

    tl;dr
    It will prly run stereoscopic 3D on the hotter side, maybe not at highest settings, but it should run okay.

    Thanks.

    I'm ok at lower settings.
  15. bc5 said:
    I believe as an integer that would become 1. Which is the square root of 1. Which looks less clever I suppose :-) I have always been curious though - why that avatar?


    It was supposed to be a float, however, I accidentally made it int and then spent half of the day searching for a bug. Finally I found that ingenious piece of code and I thought I would document it :P.
  16. ittimjones said:
    My single GTX 570 was running 3D on my Vizio 47inch TV. It would only run at 720p which was half the resolution I was used to playing. I believe it was the TV's limitations though. It was running on the hotter side in BF3. I only played like that for a little bit cause BF3 in 3D did look AMAZING!!!!!!! but my K/D was suffering cause I couldn't play competitively at that resolution, and I was too busy most of the time checking out the graphics.

    My experience w/ 3D gaming is that it does look AMAZING!!! but nothing is precise. so you will be absolutely 500% amazed at how awesome it is to run into a room w/ a shotty and take care of business, but you won't be able to hit anyone at any distance, due to the 2 separate images to each eye is off center. In other words, there is no center view of anything. There is what things look like from slightly to the right and slightly to the left of what you are looking at and you have to kind of put whatever you was the center of the cross hairs to be in between both views... I'm sure it's better at full HD 3D, but will prly still be apparent.

    tl;dr
    It will prly run stereoscopic 3D on the hotter side, maybe not at highest settings, but it should run okay.


    While 3D isn't really meant for competition, you can solve most your aiming issues by using the Laser site. With Nvidia, that is ctrl-F12, after it's on, you can save it for that game by hitting ctrl-F7.

    Though I must say, with Metro 2033, I enjoyed turning off the laser site for added realism.
  17. Best answer
    melikepie said:
    Well, would the GPU be good enough that's all I'm asking. I don't care about HD3D vs NVIDIA 3D.


    If you go AMD, make sure to get an HD3D monitor with displayport, or one specifically made to work with AMD and dual link DVI-D. HDMI will not give you what you want until HDMI 1.4b is available. That means you will likely want to get a Samsung monitor, as they appear to be the only ones doing active shutter for AMD systems.

    You'll have to turn down settings for it to work well, but you may also be able to use virtual 3D offered in the Tridef software, which is sort of a cheat method of 3D, but lowers the quality by adding a bit of a blurry halo around objects.

    In general, as everyone has said, 3D Vision is much easier to use, and less buggy, but HD3D is getting better.
  18. Sunius said:
    It was supposed to be a float, however, I accidentally made it int and then spent half of the day searching for a bug. Finally I found that ingenious piece of code and I thought I would document it :P.


    Haha I've done that :-) What do you code in?
  19. Best answer selected by melikepie.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards GPUs 3D Graphics