I didn't read it, I have it. Massive framerate dips happen when I run games in 3D on my PC.

But since forums work with "link or i didn't happen" - http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=276&Itemid=58&limit=1&limitstart=5

What are these two different 3D techs called?

I mean one is like in the video in the OP, head tracking 3-D or something.
- this requires a huge increase in processing power.

And the other is with glasses where objects appear to pop out from the screen (like in some movie cinemas today, and the Nvidia 3-D glasses Desloitude has).
- this requires double the processing power

I want both techs immeditaly.

^ I mean what term should we all use for the respective tech, which are two completely different forms of 3-D, so we can use these terms so that everyone understands?

So they say about half the framerate (which may be exactly due to each frame being actually two frames).

It's not that I don't believe your account, it just wasn't conclusive...

These 3-D techs are the best thing that has happened in gaming (I think, ive never actually seen it live). It's amazing.

Head tracking doesn't require a huge amount of processing. If you're making the user wear infrared LEDs, it should take very little processing at all. You just interpret the position of the user's head and move the in-game camera appropriately to achieve the 3D illusion. Using a conventional camera, like the PS Eye, might take a little more processing power to interpret which part of the image represents the user's head, but I doubt it would take very much at all.

I agree with you. Somebody needs to get off their duff and take head tracking out of tech demos and onto the market.

When you have a monster PC like the one they are testing Farcry 2 on, thisgs are ok at 20 fps...but my PC gets 20 fps on Crysis when 3D is off. When 3D is on...we got trouble. And I don't have a slouch of a PC. Dual core athlon, 8800 GTS video, 3 gigs of ram.

I use it mostly for watching Beuwolf and playing games form 2006 and before. FEAR 1, Halflife 2...Left 4 Dead...work kickass. I don't even dare try Resident Evil 5...even though that would be so amazing in 3D.

But when u watch the OP, it seems like with head tracking on the scene must all of a sudden be rendered from every little angle in addition to the normal render of the scene. And u can even see the fram rate stutters because it's such a heavy scene.

So what I mean is, that the part u describe where the camera detects our head position may not take much processing power at all, but on the other side - what we see on the screen due to movements of our head position - needs big additional processing power.

alot of misunderstanding abot my article..

1.) Its not true 3D, its an illusion, and a very good one.

2.) The LED's and the glasses are the SAME tech, developed along side each other. How exactly the glasses lens themselves work, i dunno.

I just watched the video, and I don't get why they're using 6 teraflops of processing power. Perhaps because they're using clustered CPUs instead of a GPU with a properly optimized 3D engine. All they're doing is shifting the viewpoint of the scene approriately as they move the camera, it shouldn't chew up much more processing power than walking around in an FPS. How the camera shifts would be a little tricky with this implementation, since it has to zoom out and pan in at the same time so that objects look like they're getting closer while more of the scene is revealed in the 'window,' but it shouldn't take a cluster to pull off.

I'm betting these guys simply aren't doing it the easy way because they're just hobbyists who lack either the software or the expertise, perhaps both.