By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 21 January 2010
Edit Thread
Twistedpixel said:
disolitude said:
Twistedpixel said:

Real racing fans demand 60FPS. Theres a reason why all major racing games run at this frame-rate and the people who would get 3D are the people who would notice 30FPS. Its the only reasonable explanation given the delays and the naturally higher resolution and frame-rate this game enjoys that they are making this title a 3D native. Theres no point in doing less than that as with this game in 3D the audience still demands 60FPS per eye!

The PS3 is notoriously fillrate limited, so taking it back from 2xMSAA to 0xMSAA or implementing some other AA method would give them back the fillrate they need to run the game with a checkboard pattern or similar implementation. The trade off is resolution/AA instead of frame-rate.

 

You could be right. I don't have the scope of what PS3 can do with the Nvidia 7800 videocard lol. I can barely run 3D games at max settings with a GTX295 on the PC lol. To be honest, I think its remakrable that they were able to get Super Stardust HD to run at 720p@120 hz for 3D.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/super-stardust-3d-720p120-confirmed-article

It will be interesting to see what this new sony firmware update does. Apparently its supposed to like an API which allows all kinds of 3D to work with their games...so DLP3D checkerboard pattern, shutter glasses with full resolution images, passive polarized setup or whatever else they choose to support. Games will still need native 3D support but it may be something worth the money if it has that kind of flexibility.

I'll put it this way, they have 'ancient' 8 ROP units clocked at 500mhz. They ARE fillrate limited especially when considering any application of MSAA which cuts their Z-rate quite considerably. Your GTX 295 has 8* the theoretical fill rate and probably 10-20* the fillrate in practice.

Your issue is that you're running games optimised for 30-60FPS and trying to get them up to 120FPS with numerous bottlenecks. You're CPU limited and GPU limited at different points of the frame and the higher you attempt to push your frame-rate the more time your cards spend idle waiting for the CPU.

I would not have personally attempted 3D on anything less than DX11 hardware with the DX11 driver model. The biggest change DX11 gives us is the same multi-threaded just in time rendering that the Xbox 360 has enjoyed up until now. Since you're most likely CPU limited in some fashion, splitting the load over multiple cores should give your PC the ability to feed the graphics card a lot more efficiently.

The Sony update is interesting but im waiting for Fermi to come out to try 3D on the PC. I don't like the idea of paying so much money for a half assed setup when I can get better 3D for cheaper on the PC, with a 24" 3D monitor, and graphics card which will cost less than upgrading the TV and give a better return in terms of experience. If the implementation isn't half assed on the PS3? Well I already own the console and the glasses and by the time I figure that out the TVs will be both better and cheaper to display 3D, win/win.


Yeah I figured as much about the Ps3 video chip. And you're right about 3D not being optimized for 120hz on the PC. The funny thing is that I use a Samsung 67 inch DLP for 3d gaming which uses checkerboard. I have a Viewsonic 3D monitor as well but I like the DLP 3D much better (no ghosting).

So essentially I am running 1080p checkerboard which is 720p@ 60 hz x 2. However the 3D vision drivers and the videocard are pushing 1080p@60 hz X 2 and only then do they interlace the signal to appear in the checkerbaord pattern. Essentially wasting 1/2 of the performance...

But yeah, the Nvidia CES 2010 was quite impressive with the GF100 and mustiple display 3D...so that seems to be the way to go. I don't think you will look back on the console 3d once you get that going... Not even for a second...lol