Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

QOTD: Do You Want True 3D Graphics for Games?

By - Source: Tom's Hardware US | B 67 comments

Both AMD and Nvidia are recently nearly neck to neck in terms of graphics performance. If you are fortunate enough to own a card from either company, you no doubt are able to play the latest games without a problem--especially when you're running in CrossFire or SLI.

Graphics processors are becoming ever speedy. More speed, more memory, and of course, more features. The latest generation of GPUs offer incredible processing power as well as being extremely programmable. However, in recent years, not many games have been able to take true advantage of some of the most powerful GPUs. Even GPUs from two years ago or older are able to hold their own in recent games without much problem.

Now, 3D glasses are making their way back into the limelight. But this isn't the first time 3D stereo glasses have tried to make a mark with gamers. There have been many failures. Nvidia is clearly making a push to bring them back with its GeForce 3D Vision.

The question of the day is: Do you want true 3D stereo for games or do you care less?

Most of today's games hardly cause our GPUs to break a sweat, and because of their programmability, GPUs are extremely versatile. Needless to say, GPU technology is way ahead of today's games. Perhaps it's a good time now for game developers to take true advantage of recent GPU technology and GPU speeds to do things such as support stereo 3D glasses or add more realism, detail or eye-candy to games.

Display 67 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 5 Hide
    Blessedman , March 18, 2009 7:43 AM
    I want a VR helmet that weighs less then an ounce and be wireless, lol. I am not sure glasses and expensive monitors are the wave of the future, but I am often wrong.
  • 9 Hide
    curnel_D , March 18, 2009 8:00 AM
    I dont/wont care about 3D. I've tested it, and honestly I'm not extremely excited about it. Factor that in with the extreme price and the clunky annoying glasses, and it rates about a 0.001 on my give a damn-o-meter.
  • 5 Hide
    Daneel , March 18, 2009 8:30 AM
    If they can make a light implementation of it, and it works easily and looks great, then sure :D  It would sure bring some new life to games most people don't think of as 3d, like RTSs. I'd like to see support for other applications like AutoCAD as well though. I consider it just as important that it be flexible.
  • 5 Hide
    donaldl , March 18, 2009 9:03 AM
    Has anyone every seen a 3D movie on a 22" monitor? The screen is just too small to make the effects, well..effective. It's like watch a movie through a pipe. For this to work well your gonna need a big screen, like 42" big, and how many gamers have the cash for that.

    I'm with Blessedman; light weight, wireless, VR helmets with built in sorround sound are the way to go.
  • 4 Hide
    San Pedro , March 18, 2009 9:19 AM
    I had a 42" inch TV hooked up to my PC before I moved to Japan (boy do I ever miss it), but even with that I still wouldn't be too excited about true 3d. As for the glasses, I would be interested to try but ultimately I think they would not be comfortable enough for every day use, and I still have a lot of doubts as to how good they actually are.
  • 3 Hide
    powerbaselx , March 18, 2009 9:34 AM
    I really don't care about stereo glasses and games and that is not a good thing for your eyes and brain when used too many hours... I guess the bill with healthcare at the ophtalmologist will rise a lot if this massifies!
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2009 9:56 AM
    Nope. I'll be perfectly happy to go from 2-D images to visual cortex stimulation.
  • 1 Hide
    humand , March 18, 2009 10:14 AM
    so far "true 3D" is a waste of time and money. what's the point in running "true 3D" when framerates are almost cut in half. I mean its not like we get 100fps in crysis and we want to see it see it in "true 3D" furthermore you're stuck to the so called gaming monitors who are prices to rip you off. if you want to see it on 40+ inches you're out of luck, because even if a lot of hdtvs out there can do 120hz, they don't support their technology because their 120hz is not "true 120hz" and so the 3D effects will be lost. you'll have to buy a gaming projector for that and well those are not exactly bargains either.. i think ill stop here
  • -3 Hide
    humand , March 18, 2009 10:14 AM
    so far "true 3D" is a waste of time and money. what's the point in running "true 3D" when framerates are almost cut in half. I mean its not like we get 100fps in crysis and we want to see it see it in "true 3D" furthermore you're stuck to the so called gaming monitors who are prices to rip you off. if you want to see it on 40+ inches you're out of luck, because even if a lot of hdtvs out there can do 120hz, they don't support their technology because their 120hz is not "true 120hz" and so the 3D effects will be lost. you'll have to buy a gaming projector for that and well those are not exactly bargains either.. i think ill stop here
  • 1 Hide
    Inneandar , March 18, 2009 10:27 AM
    I sure care for it, but from what reviews i have read so far the bad (non-existant) support in games makes it a mediocre experience. The hardware side is catching up (120 Hz monitor is not so expensive, and cards can take the performance hit in a lot of games), so i think this shouldn't be an issue... after all, lotta people ar bound to glasses anyho and they seem to survive
  • 4 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2009 10:39 AM
    I think:
    1- The simple Red-blue glasses will probably not be the best choice;but there is a variant used with eye doctors that look just like regular sun glasses.
    2- Any kind of helmet to play 3D games will absolutely suck wearing it (it'd look goofy,and people these days are very picky on what they put on their head).
    3- Any glasses with internal monitor build in will probably lack resolution. Many games are nice when played in at least 1024x720 pix, while many 3D glasses only support 640x480 to 800x600 pix.

    Besides, the 3D glasses don't have that large of an appearance of screen;and 3D sun/blue-red glasses probably might pose problems on LCD screens if LCD screens need to display the alternate image (for the other eye) every other frame.
    despite having a 1ms lag, I fear some artifacts might not come out nicely with glasses.
  • 1 Hide
    chief5286 , March 18, 2009 11:06 AM
    I'm quite excited by the potential to be playing in stereo 3d within a couple of years. However, for that to come to pass, prices on the required technology will need to drop significantly. If in a couple years' time there are good, reasonably priced monitors or flat-panel TVs that support the required refresh rates, I'd be more than willing to invest in the glasses. In all, I think the technology has great potential if the prices come down to a realistic level and there is adequate implementation and support on the software side.
  • -2 Hide
    SlicerX , March 18, 2009 11:56 AM
    3D glasses aren't true 3D, and if it's anything like IMAX (which is not bad, just not worth the extra money), then there's no point. It's the developers job to imerse the player in their "3d" environment. Whether it's true 3d or not, it will satisfy the player. For now, my games look so damn good with my 8800gt and 19" samsung that I am very satisfied. So I could care less about 3d glasses.
  • 0 Hide
    jeverson , March 18, 2009 12:15 PM
    Meh...
  • 2 Hide
    utgardaloki , March 18, 2009 12:24 PM
    I have the edimensional glasses and used to run games off a 21" CRT. I only bought them to test the technology but the driver issues were nothing short of a nightmare and many a game wouldn't work properly so in the end I stopped using them.
    But properly set up and while working well with a game the effect was just about completelly real. The immersive feel blow my mind. So much so that the games that worked well with it started to feel very boring and uninteresting without it. I'm currently reserching what monitor or TV would be best in combination with nvidia's solution and I'm definatelly buying those in the near future but with something considerably bigger than a measly 21" (20 effective) CRT because that size really strained my eyes. Brilliant effect!
  • 1 Hide
    xsamitt , March 18, 2009 12:28 PM
    I would take a longer ,better games any day over eye candy.
  • 0 Hide
    tenor77 , March 18, 2009 12:29 PM
    The potential is great, but the implementation is not there. Right now D3D movies resort to gimmicks to use the 3d. "oh the giant balls rolling towards me. wow..."

    I agree that it'll probably take a true headset to make this work, and it has to make the experience more immersive, and not just be a gimmick, which I think is all it will be.
  • 2 Hide
    Anonymous , March 18, 2009 12:31 PM
    Yes, give me 3D. But, I would prefer special HD goggles with the HD screens built in. I would like a wide actual field of view (say over 90 degrees). I would also like the goggles to track head motions -- so I could look around. In other words, I want a virtual world.

    I think it is feasible. I would pay a lot ($1000) for that capability if it supported a lot of games.
  • 2 Hide
    crimsondynamics , March 18, 2009 12:36 PM
    Do I want? Yes.

    But I don't want to have to wear anything special in order to experience "true" 3d. The technology should work just like watching regular TV.
  • 0 Hide
    rambo117 , March 18, 2009 12:38 PM
    ooooo, loooks fun. i wanna try this in dead space!!!! :D 
Display more comments