Anyways, I'm extremely excited by this tech if it feels like real 3D.

$200 for the glasses is peanuts, but I'm worried u'd need a super GPU to output a high FPS (with preserved nice visuals) or u'll have to run games in low settings.

The way I see it, each alternating frame shown by the monitor must be different, otherwise it won't be 3D anymore as both eyes will be seeing the same thing. Therefore it looks like the PC has to at least output at 120 FPS, whether they can employ some tricks to do it while rendering at 60 fps or not I don't know.

The slower the frame rate the more likely you will see the shutter change as a flicker. At 30 fps (15 frames per eye) you would definately experience a noticable flicker that would proabaly be very unpleasant. When I saw the technology years ago on standard video 24 fps interlaced (24 fps per eye) the flicker was just noticable although not too distracting. 120 fps (30 fps per eye) would make it totally invisible and keep the game flowing smoothly.

I wear glasses (as I guess a few people on here do...) any word on whether this stuff works when one eye is a lot weaker than the other?

Nvidia fails with this.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/192/1050192/nvidia-picks-the-wrong-3d-glasses-technology

Firstly, they used "active shutter technology" which has no advantages over passive glasses except that it costs far more, gives eyestrain and needs a power supply.

Secondly, they require you to have an Nvidia GPU. There is nothing preventing this being done on the CPU or an ATI GPU other than patents and lock-in via deals with the people who actually design the technology (Nvidia certainly didn't). Nvidia doesn't even have the best cards for the computation - ATI's have more than double the FLOPS.

Finally, their entire system is way too expensive and specialised to be propely used except in the ultra-high-end-PC market. Passive technology with a generic software implementation would be adopted far faster. But that wouldn't force you to use an Nvidia chip...

@Soleron: Doesn't this require updated drivers? I don't think they could make it work on ATI cards unless ATI worked with them.

I didn't mean that it works on ATI cards. I meant that there's nothing special about the process itself that only Nvidia can do. Any processor can do it in theory, and if ATI paid Nvidia a license fee they could release drivers that run the glasses software without much effort. It's just that Nvidia is pushing the capability more.

For example, the latest Photoshop has GPU acceleration and at all of the Adobe press events they touted Nvidia as the card it would work on. When it launched, it actually ran on ATI cards too (because it uses generic OpenGL) and it ran on them faster.

Hopefully OpenCL changes the dominance of Nvidia-specific CUDA.

But this case is different, as it would require explicit cooperation between the two... We don't know whose fault it is, could even be both.

All it would take is for the manufacturer to code it in OpenGL instead of CUDA. It's not that hard.

But we're talking about driver changes. Drivers are not written with either of these, they're much more low-level. What's more, this looks like it's game specific so I'm thinking the changes in the drivers aren't that trivial.

Note that they have to somehow make the game render two different cameras per frame. I'm not sure how they're accomplishing that in the drivers, just going by the information in the website.