^^ What are you trying to say? First of all it does not justify anything about your misleading info posting that AMD does not support 3D gaming. It is actually strengthening each and every point I've said.
It uses the same series of Asus monitor I've suggested and the review is pretty good about it.
2ndly it also specified that frame rate drop in 3D for the 3D optimized games are just 30% in case of single 480 and just 11% in case of SLI.
Here is the quote from the review itself:
So in case of a GTX 580, the loss will be lesser than 30% due to his higher processing power.
Again and again you are just posting garbage data, irrelevant of anything. I think we need to design a garbage collector for DIGIT forum. Buddy, at least read what you are posting. For processing the 2 images there is a overhead but it does not drop the performance by 50% or half. It is like 1/3 or 1/4 th at maximum. Did I say that it is free of performance hit in any of my post? If I said then please point me. All I said is the performance hit will not be such will will reduce the performance to 50% of the original and your review is basically proving every bit of my word.
You need to understand a bit more.
First of all stop selective quoting stuff from articles. AVP and LP2 showed less performance in sli 3d than in single gpu 3d, lost planet had 40% performance drop in sli, mafia 2 was the exception.
So read the article again, this time with glasses(2d) on.
Second, yes, about that optimization stuff, that review said it depends on games, so mafia 2 may scale 11%, but most other games won't, specially games that do not have optimizations. It does not depend on gpus, but on the games. 40% hit looks pretty significant to me. And a GTX480 is a very fast config, if it gets hit by 40-50% 580 will hit harder.
Third, yes you said it would not be 50%, maybe you meant 40%, that does not matter, anything over 20% is a significant hit.
Fourth, oh, do show us a single article with amd HD3d gaming review, I can show you dozens of nvidia 3d vision review, but lets see that amd hd3d gaming review. If its supported there is bound to be lot of articles on that.
Did you know this?
There's one more limitation to bear in mind. Because AMD utilizes the HDMI 1.4a specification, which boasts a maximum TMDS throughput of 10.2 Gb/s, you can either game in stereo at 720p maxing out at 60 frames per second per eye, or you can game at 1080p with up to 24 frames per second per eye. That's actually pretty severe, considering we've been playing around with 5760x1080 using 3D Vision Surround and dual-link DVI connectors (each display running at 1920x1080). AMD says it'll transcend the shackles of HDMI 1.4a next year sometime when monitor vendors begin incorporating DisplayPort 1.2. A peak effective bandwidth of 17.28 Gb/s is enough to enable 1080p at 60 frames per eye.
Stereoscopic 3D With AMD’s HD3D : AMD Radeon HD 6870 And 6850: Is Barts A Step Forward?
Enjoy 3d at 24FPS per eye(i.e 24 FPS).
Fifth, garbage collector? How low can you get? Foul mouthing won't win any debates, if you keep the hostility up I will just simply ignore you. Stop the childish rants.
Does GTA4 even supports stereoscopic 3d? Afaik, it doesn't have native support. And ofcourse titles not having native support will look bad in 3d mode.
Parallex barrier has a lot of shortcomings. For instance, the viewer has to position himself/herself in a specific point to view correct depth. Since a parallex barrier has a number of slits to allow light to pass at different angles, the position of the eyes has to be such that two images are foccussed simultaneously in order to view depth.
Another shortcoming is that the horizontal pixel count is reduced by one half.
Its kind of a cheap implementation of 3d it hardly will be mainstream.
Nintendo 3ds is a great example of a having a display with a parralex barrier enabling glass free 3d.
Real glass free 3d has to be a lenticular display. Here , instead of a barrier having a no. of slits, it has a refractive layer on top of the panel. This method relies on a display coated with a lenticular film. Lenticules are tiny lenses on the base side of a special film. The screen displays two sets of the same image. The lenses direct the light from the images to your eyes each eye sees only one image. Your brain puts the images together and you interpret it as a three-dimensional image.
This technology requires content providers to create special images for the effect to work. They must interlace the two sets of images together. If you were to try and view the video feed on a normal screen, you would see a blurry double image.
Here's a comparison between parralex barrier and lenticular method.
*img31.imageshack.us/img31/7618/220pxparallaxbarriervsl.png
You can clearly see that that the lenticular display has a wide source coming to each eye than the parralex method.This allows the user to switch positions more freely than the parralex based display.
But lenticular displays are far expensive to make and will take sometime to get mainstream. So lenticular displays are the future cause they also provide more sense of depth than their parralex counterparts.
Looks pretty exciting, but anyway I heard, nintendo's 3d implementation hurts the eye a lot(which could very well be a myth), anyone had first hand experience with that?
