Anyone using NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision ?

It's cool, and it works. On the other hand, the technology is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago. Nothing tells me that it's chances of sticking around this time are any better than they were back then. The only thing that has changed is that LCD's finally caught up to the CRT's ability to spit out 120hz.

Find something else to spend your money on.

The monitor is really expensive. If you have the HDTVs that already supports it or need a new HDTV then you might want to consider buying one that supports it, otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Personally I wouldn't consider gaming on anything smaller than a 24" display at this point.

I have had the 3D Vision glasses and Viewsonic monitor for nearly 2 weeks and really like it. It took me about an hour for my eyes to get used to the effect, but has not bothered me since. I play all my games in 3d Vision. Oblivion, Fallout 3, Tomb Raider Underworld, and DDO:Unlimited are amazing. It adds a new level of immersion for me. You will need a beefy system, games take a big hit with 3d Vision enabled. Viewsonic had the glasses and monitor bundle available last week for $399 if you used the coupon code "Blizzard."

CPU, nice
Ram, SUCKY!
Gpu, really sucky
Hdd, average but I somehow see it being an old model 1TB...
OS, good.


You could build is it all yourself for 1/4 the cost. Or I can build it for you, and Ill pocket the other 3/4 of the money

Also, just for reference I have a an Intel Q6600, 4GB PC3200 RAM, and a GTX260 192. I wouldn't want anything slower for 3D Vision and recent games. My system runs Batman and Tomb Raider Underworld in 3d Vision mode adequately in High Detail Settings and 1680x1050, but not a steady 60 fps.

I sure hope your wrong on what kind of RAM you have, otherwise you are losing about 40% of your performance due to RAM bottlenecks...

Enigma - You're full of crap. Stop trying to give advice regarding a topic that you are very apparently ill-educated in.

littlerm - Your ram is fine. You would be well served to ignore Enigma's comment regarding it. Now, if the board supports more than 4GB, and you are using a 64-bit OS, then Vista/7 would really like it if you bumped up to 6-8GB of ram. It could then do a better job of pre-fetching stuff for you, reducing wait times when you launch a new app. Any game that isn't SupCom just doesn't care that you have 4GB, nor do they particularly care about the speed.

capecodguy - enigma is right about a single, solitary thing. That video card is kind of cheesy. It's a slightly cut-down GTS 250, which is what I own. The GTS 250 does great if what you want is 1080p at 30+ fps at medium-high settings in games. It is going to suck when you start trying to render everything twice for 3D use. A GTX 260 would be a far better choice, for a minimal cost difference.

Wow way to flamebait darklordjames. But it is aparently you who doesnt know a lot about RAM as you didnt even address the concern I brought up over his RAM. Size wise is fine but his speed if it really is PC3200 is not. Which is the point I made above.

And if you look, YOU have the slightly cut down version graphics card, not him. He has a GTX260, you have a GTS250. GTS cards are lower than GTX cards, even if he does have the first generation GTX260...



Now if you look at the point I was making, PC3200 is generation 1 RAM at DDR400, which is 200MHz in speed. Lets say he has great PC3200 RAM, that means he has timings of 2-2-2-5. Uncommon back in the day, but it did exist. I actually own a pair of sticks with those speeds and timings. However, those timings was only common in 512MB sticks (still rare, but of the sticks that existed, they were common in 512MB sizes), and incredibly rare in 1GB sticks. Which means he either spent $400+ in RAM way back when or he has lower grade timings, which is much more likely. But even if he had the best timings of DDR400 RAM, his bandwidth would not be enough to provide the CPU with adequate data and would be a large bottleneck to his system. Just look at it, he has a quad core with at LEAST 2.6GHz probably higher. And he has a modern graphics card requiring large ammount of data from the CPU, which does have enough power to give the graphics card that data. But then he has incredibly low speed RAM, starving the CPU for data and slowing the entire system down. For a system like his to not bottleneck severely at the memory, he needs at least DDR-800, preferably DDR-1000 or higher. His PC3200 RAM is most likely 2.5-3-3-7-1T timings, so cheap DDR-800 would give him 5-5-5-15-2T timings, which would allow him the same nanosecond latency for his memory, but would give him double the bandwidth. If he got DDR-1000 (or 1066, etc) then the timings would most likely be 5-5-5-18-2t which would actually be faster latency wise but have even more bandwidth. With more bandwidth the CPU wont be choking for information all the time, which will allow it to feed the graphics card with all the information it needs when the card needs it. This will help a lot with the minimum frames per second.


Now, if he is going to upgrade his graphcis card, which I dont recommend, then the only card to upgrade to that would offer a significant performacne increase would be an Nvidia GTX295 or the new AMD 5870. Those are the only cards that would be a large enough performance difference to justify an upgrade at this point. Personally I would choose the 5870 out of those since it is a single card solution and not SLI on a card. But I would definitely recommend waiting until some more AMD cards are released and Nvidia releases their new cards as well before thinking about an upgrade. If you are going to upgrade, and you really do have PC3200 RAM, then get a new motherboard and some faster RAM. Thats where you will see a large performance difference.


Next time learn more about what you are talking about before you flame other people. You arent right about a single thing in your post.

Dude, for 3D acceleration/gaming, RAM isn't that important. This is perhaps the most annoying myth that people like to throw around along with the myth that more RAM = faster system.

Gaming requires first and foremost a capable video card, then CPU power. The only important RAM in this equation is the video RAM on the video card itself. Faster system RAM may save you a few seconds between loading maps or such, but won't affect your frame rate in a significant way, certainly not 40%.

Im just going to stop posting computer stuff here on this non-computer forum. Not enough people understand it here.

Your using some good logic and understand how gaming works, but your not using logic on why the faster RAM would improve his performance.

My god, Enigma. You are amazing.

You seriously just went on this big long rant about DDR400 being slow, and then followed that up with saying "He needs DDRS800!!!1", completely failing your roll to check how fast DDR2-800 actually is. The shift to DDR2 was purely an economical one from the manufacturer's view. DDR2-533 and DDR2-667 were actually slower than DDR400, due to the far slower timings. DDR2-800 is the first point in the DDR2 line where the speed of the RAM finally matched what was available in the previous generation.

You know just about enough to make it look like you know what your talking about, but the reality is that you just give really ill-informed advice.

Additionally, you should maybe, I don't know, read the posts that you want to reply to. My entire comment regarding video cards was regarding capecodguy's proposed system in post #4.

Like I said. You're amazing.

"Im just going to stop posting computer stuff here on this non-computer forum."

THANK YOU PLEASE!

Back on topic:

I got a chance to try it out at Frys last night and I was really impressed. Burnout Paradise was really cool. They also had a video of Tomb Raider and that looked really good as well. I'm getting a new system when Windows 7 comes out anyway so I'm probably going to get this as well. If you live near a Frys call and see if they have a system on display. I skeptical before myself.

It does look really impressive. I tried Fallout3 at MicroCenter and was impressed. I imagine it looks really good on Samsung/Mitshubishi's LCD larger HDTVs- then I could see it being worth the money.

I've tried it out and think it's pretty cool. I may pick it up at some point but no sure yet.

Well, it is worth the money for the card, but as already pointed out that technically you're being overcharged for the whole package anyways so it doesn't really matter. So if you're really intent on purchasing that setup from Dell, more power to you.

How much do they want for a 275 as compared to a 260?

"Is it worth the added coin?"

Jesus. 1.7GB of ram on a card. Do they have the lower ram version for less? If not, then yes, spend the extra 100$ on the GTX260.

Oops, that was a typo. I have 4GB of PC2-6400 RAM, 800Mhz. Sorry for the confusion. I had PC3200 stuck in my head for some reason (that's DDR-1 RAM).

OP,
I can think of a single thing that makes a bigger impact to the way you experience games than 3D vision.
It is not cheap but if you go with the 22" LCD (which btw looks like a 24" when gaming because of the way the 3d effect works) you should be fine with a GTX260 or so.
For 1080p I suggest a 295.
Again, the way you experience games with this is just amazing....you can hardly image going back to 2d flat lands again. :-)
With the whole 3d ready tvs and bluray 3d stuff coming soon, this time the terms of the game are much more different so this era cannot be compared to the previous generation of 3d glasses.
Regards

I have it with a Samsung DLP and I was really impressed with how Nvidia fixed the minor glitches with Sammy DLPs long after Samsung abandoned the tech and probably gave Nvidia little or no support. For some reason, the Mits DLPs didn't have the issues that Samsung had.

There should be 24" monitors coming out at some point.

It is also supported by a Samsung plasma or two (unofficially) and by a few projectors. There is also supposed to be a Optoma HD65 upgrade that supports it.

what happens if you use a 240hz lcd monitor

My mini review here:

Ok, I am not going to make it long, 3D Vision simply ROCKS!
No hardware upgrade I have done in many many years of upgrade bugs is able to match the experience 3D Vision delivers.
No matter how good you think Batman is right now (which is VERY good), the 3D Vision experience makes it just THAT much better.
You will see details you normally miss, you will be INSIDE the world the designer created.
Words cannot describe this faithfully but all I want to do with this thread is give you a little push to try it for yourself.
Go ahead and look for a demo location or ask for demos in the forum, whatever it takes but if you consider yourself a gamer, you gotta try this.
And please whatever you do, do not let some people's, err, misguided comments scare you. Most of the people that say negative things is people that never tried it.
Do yourself a favor and try it...if for some strange reason you do not like it or get some motion sickness or whatever, then at least you gave it a shot but so far, everyone who has seen it at my place have been blown away and that is only on my current 22" lcd (which btw , makes things oh so smooth at 120Hz).

One thing I also like is the fact that you can tweak the experience to fit your preferences...by tweaking the depth and convergence you can go from a deep inside the monitor look to a pop out type of effect look or somewhere in the middle...

Thanks for reading.


Some games I love in 3D:

Batman
RE5
Outrun (lol)
Jericho (amazing when gaming on 3D)
L4D
NFS Shift
NFS Carbon
COD 4 and 5
pretty much every games becomes a new experience when you try them on 3D.

Regards
_______________