Hardware AMD Talks HD3D

All sounds very logical but as usual with AMD talk is cheap......go to the DDD and iZ3D sites and see how many screens etc are available......correct.....naaada.

Just the same as AMds talk of open standards for gpu physics.....two years on how many games have Bullet gpu physics?....yeah you guessed it...close to naaada.

Open standards are great but AMD seems to use them as an excuse for actually doing nothing and leaving the work to others.....at least Nvidia have pushed through their 3D and Physx development into products you can buy and use now.......how long before we see AMD's efforts come to fruition?....yeah talk is cheap.

 

Someone might need to correct me on this. But if you go to the iZ3D site, you can buy the 3D driver/middleware that enables 3D gaming through your ATi card to a 3DTV. The point being that iZ3D or whoever is enabling the 3D through their own software (and maintaining it), thereby ATi just provides the hardware (card), iZ3D provides the middleware (3D driver) and you provide the 3DTV.

Right or wrong?

In fact, when I went to the site I went through the card check as ATi had said in the article ... so it appears they were spot on?

 

Seems great... Wanna see Call of Duty and medal of Honor in 3D

 

What if a manufacturer came out with monitor that supports both 2560x1600 and stereoscopic 3d? (it would probably need two DisplayPort or dual-link dvi inputs, one for each eye, but looking at the iZ3D website, the driver already supports dual output mode)

 

Which means ati have done...?

iZ3D are a company that produces their own 3D game software, as does DDD (make TriDef) which is another little company which does the same thing, as does nvidia. None of those are *standard* - each company has their own custom solution - the only difference is iZ3D/TriDef support nvidia and AMD cards which makes them a bit more *open*. You pay them money and they give you varying qualities of 3D solution. All AMD have done as far as I can see is work out a discount with iZ3D and enable standard 3D HDMI output on their cards, they haven't done anything else towards helping 3D gaming.

Hence they deserve very little praise. Nvidia for all the hate have actively worked with game devs to make games 3D friendly (e.g. 3D huds/cursors/shadow effects) - really the only reason there are some games that work perfectly in 3D (batman, metro 2033, etc) are because nvidia put the effort in. That probably helps everyone using iZ3D too. Nvidia is also probably 90'% of the reason there are all these 120hz monitors too which even if you hate 3D are a *must* have for any serious fps gamer (well any without a CRT anyway).

leveller is right to look back at hw accelerated physics. AMD said exactly the same thing then - "open" and "standard" is best, look we support this companies 3d physx solution and point at bullet. Since then what has happened? - have AMD got bullet put into games, got lots of HW physics available for you to play? No! They don't seem to have done anything - other then perhaps advertise bullet a bit - even for development bullet were using nvidia cards because they had better open cl support. And this is only their latest "we have hw physics talk" - they were talking up havok fx in about 2006 and what came out of that?

AMD produce some great hardware, but really their marketing spouts a lot of hot air. Action > words.

 

Honestly I generally can't say one type of 3D against the other, I see in 3D... therefor thats 3D. It isn't a natural progression, I would expect Virtual Reality to be natural progression but we're a tad away from Futurama's Internet, right?

3D generally I cannot accept as a good thing into gaming. I generally don't want everything flying past me at wierd angles just because my eyes work differently to how the 3D software is going to. I'm entirely happy with being able to see exactly what I see in 2D. Afterall, that (as it goes) is close enough. If I wanted to sky-dive/go on a rampage/drive a rally car, I'd go do it in person! (the middle one of which is scary huh?)

To be honest chap, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. You're the kind of person I raise my eyebrow at because you would strap a sub to the bottom of your chair for the extra experience in game... I'd just go and do whatever it was (Although serious vibrations through the lower back and arse region worry me slightly *coughs* lol) such as skydive or drive a rally car.

3D in my eyes (no pun intended) is not a natural progression of gaming, that's VR and Total Immersion games... where body language and motion sensors can represent a virtual world. In yours, well thats different, but totally up to you!

 

Excited about the news that Reald3D are getting in on the game for PC gaming. I tried the interlacing (no strain, looked too low res) and active shutter glasses (eye strain after 3 minutes) options and found them severely lacking, but the Reald3D stuff in the cinema worked really well for me - I thought it improved the immersion quite a lot.

So bit-tech, please review the Samsung monitor that supports this tech as son as it's released - I'd be seriously interested in buying it

 

I agree about the VR but I think 3d should be a part of that. My dream is to have a display system (by whichever means) that would fill the entire field of view. Couple that with stereoscopic 3d, head tracking, vibration feedback, gestural control and you have the future of gaming. I used active shutter 3d for a number of years and didn't experience any headaches. Nvidia has supported stereoscopic 3d for many many years. I used to play a number of games in 3d (Star wars pod racer, Doom 3, Painkiller etc), for the most part the games displayed perfectly well in 3d. I don't have a problem with objects flying past of coming out of the screen. I'm just someone who wants the most immersive system technology will allow.

 

[Takes in a breath]

THAT'S THE POINT!

Now that I feel a bit better, it seems you've missed the point that AMD isn't supporting iZ3D and DDD, they're supporting everyone, including those who don't pay the Nvidia tax.
iZ3D and DDD are solutions for converting 2D games to 3D, such as those older games that don't support it. But AMD is also supporting developers (such as Eidos) to provide 3D natively (in which case you don't need the iZ3D/DDD middleware). If another company comes along that is more to your liking, I'm sure AMD will support them too.

Not only that, they are supporting everyone's 3D hardware solutions equally, unlike Nvidia who only support the solutions who use Nvidia's own glasses (and pay the Nvidia tax) which cost $149.

I'm glad you like Nvidia's North Korean-style single-party solutions, but I prefer my plural democracy thanks.

Is everyone here suffering from Stockholm Syndrome? I remember when Nvidia was abusing gamers with their Physx and 3D Vision proprietary lock-ins and everyone was telling them they could go jump. Now apparently we all love Physx (ignoring the fact that it still hasn't delivered on its promise and has added nothing to gameplay, and those who have put it in their games have used it for fluff) and 3D Vision (ignoring the fact you have to buy Nvidia glasses at $149 and only a handful of monitors supports it, none of which I would want to own) despite the flaws.

Here is what AMD isn't:
- A software company (I don't consider drivers to be software),
- A display company,
- A breeder of show ponies,
- A gaming peripheral company,
- A game developer,
- A children's party entertainment agency,
- A standards setting association,
- A metallic soda container manufacturer.

AMD makes hardware widgets. This is what it is good at (an objective opinion). It makes the tools that allow others to do what they do best, whether it is software, a gaming peripheral or a happy birthday boy. Some of these companies are good and some of them aren't. AMD lets you choose who you think are good and who aren't.
Many people here have said that 3D doesn't work for them or makes them sick. Maybe there is a solution for this, but we'll never know if we're locked to Nvidia's single solution.

I couldn't care less about 3D, but a system that supports ALL solutions is better than a system that supports one (and extracts a licence fee). And I still don't care about Physx. I want to play my games, and I want them to be good. If the developers are screwing around with 3D, then the chances of a pile of crap appearing increases exponentially.

Incidentally, if AMD keeps increasing their market share, what do you think are the chances of Physx becoming more than the fluff at the edges of games?

 

I actually haven't even had the chance to try 3D gaming for myself yet but I hate the idea of glasses, and I'm not sure it could even beat my current SoftTH/EyeFinity triple-monitor setup (3x23" @ 5760x1080)... if they could figure out a way to ditch the glasses I'd be more interested, but for now I still see it as a fad. Besides, having just purchased my triple monitors I'm not willing to dish out the cash for a 3D display just yet, let alone 3 of them lol.

 

You completely miss the point of 3d. It is not a gimmick to compete with a triple monitor setup. It simply serves to provide a more realistic experience. It's quite shocking the percentage of people who are so against change even towards something that represents a natural evolution. If you're so against 3d, why don't you demonstrate by permanently sewing one eye shut?

A triple monitor setup is great. A triple monitor setup with triple Fresnel is even better. A triple monitor setup with 3d and perhaps Fresnel is better still.

 

- not enough people buy 30 inch displays
- always a compromise - awesome colours or amazing refresh rates
- most people who buy 30 inchers are graphic designers who prefer awesome colours
- no inherent bandwidth problem - dvi a no-no, DisplayPort and HDMI ok.
- the panels would be more expensive - a good 30 inch display sets you back at least £1200, and you'd pay more for 120Hz.

- rendering would be tricky - 80% increase over a one screen solution.
- For games like BC2 you'd need 2, maybe 3 GTX 580s for a viable setup (one gets 44 avg, 29 min).
- thus, very expensive, only for the super-rich.

 

Well all i can say is i find 3D is not worth it. The pc games we all play or a film we watch are a piece of entertament who cares about how 3d it is. 3D will be around but it cant not beat a good story in a game or film.

the reason i can complain is that i do have a 3d tv but now never use the 3d part it just a gimick for me

Most film which have released in 3D have had **** storys so they add 3D to hide this fact so that the paying public will go and see the latest titles.

As for Pc games or Consoles the fact that not many title have got great 3D and you can only play for an hour or two before you get headaches is pointless why would want to put up with that.

Getting more realistic experience is pointless..... the point of these products is to escape the real life for an hour or 2

 

I don't get some of the rather illogical connections people are making here. Most 3d movies have **** storys? And that is because they're 3d? No. It's because 3d is only now beginning to take off in a big way and the reason for that is that the technology has evolved to the point where graphics cards can render twice the number of frames for stereoscopic gaming in HD. Stereoscopic HD camcorders are now hitting the market because the technology is finally sufficiently powerful enough to process this high bandwidth data.

Eventually a standard will emerge so we don't have competing systems that are incompatible. The 3d scene is somewhat disorganised at the moment but great progress is being made and we are heading towards the day when some standards will emerge so we won't have the problem of buying one brand and being limited to their entertainment catalogue for example.

Auto-stereoscopic 3d displays will also evolve. There is an awful lot of narrow-mindedness and ignorance displayed here about stereoscopic 3d.

Now some of the biggest Hollywood names are making use of it we will begin to see much more creativity and some quality 3d titles.

"As for Pc games or Consoles the fact that not many title have got great 3D and you can only play for an hour or two before you get headaches is pointless why would want to put up with that." - Since Nvidia introduced their brand of active shutter glasses and drivers many years ago the catalogue of 3d supported games has grown significantly. Now the 3d revolution is finally taking hold we should see a greater number of games companies ensuring their games use proper 3d objects rather than cutting corners and using 2d objects in game as well. That's pretty much all there is to creating 3d compatible game content. You simply have to ensure all parts of the game are modelled in 3d with no 2d sprite-based corner cutting.

As for the statement about only being able to play for an hour or two... Sitting in front of any computer screen for 1 or 2 hours without a break is very bad for the eyes. Back when I was playing games in 3d I didn't find it any more tiresome and certainly didn't experience any headaches.

"Getting more realistic experience is pointless, the point of these products is to escape the real life for an hour or 2" - For you perhaps. I want the experience of driving a tank or flying a computer simulated plane to be as realistic as possible. I want to feel the engine vibration or the thud of the undercarriage being raised.

Blaming 3D for poor quality movies is rather silly. As I said, if you love 2d so much then stitch one of your eyes shut and see how you get on. Living life in stereoscopic 3d and then complaining when technology catches up with biology seems a little nonsensical.

 

Geez, you take this stuff seriously, don't you?
Sorry but I, like lots of people, don't like 3D and I don't like body vibration either. That's our choice, and our informed one no less. Some of us still even read books! Oh, the horror!

 

+1

 

If I was to buy a 3d capable monitor, my main incentive would be to have 120hz aka 120fps native "2d" games. 3d not so much.. Until we have HD free standing holograms in perfect colour, I'll pass on 3d thanks.

 

3D:

Have to wear annoying and uncomfortable glasses that never quite fit right.

Have to have a crap TN monitor

Have to game at low resolutions

Badly effects accuracy in FPS games

Isn't actually that good once the novelty wears off.


I agree with the nay sayers.... I think it's just a gimick riding along on the post avatar wave.

I'd rather game at 2560x1600 with everything on high, sitting nice and close to decent 30" monitor. To me that's far more involving, and looks a damned sight better as well.

 

AMD aren't supporting anyone. iZ3D and DDD support nvidia and AMD and have done for years. Other then negotiating a discount on iZ3D software and supporting the 3D HDMI out used by bluray AMD haven't actually done anything. The rest is just marketing and fanboy hot air.

 

I kind of do I guess. It's just disappointing to see people trashing something that's really just getting going. I was thinking about why this is and I suspect maybe several reasons:

I think people become set in their ways... PC users buy or build their computer and then use it for entertainment etc. They buy a standard set of peripherals which may include stereo or surround-sound, a joystick and they're happy. Many new ideas come and go and mostly fail (there have been some weird and whacky game controller peripherals over the years including the OCZ brainwave controller). People don't like to spend money on something that's not widely adopted.

Stereoscopic 3d is different though because as I keep saying - we are born with stereoscopic vision so it makes sense to have 3d displays when the technology advances sufficiently.

Calling it a gimmick is just plain silly because it certainly isn't. It's a natural evolution of hardware. If you're going to call stereoscopic displays a gimmick, you should also be calling stereo or surround-sound a gimmick as well, it makes absolutely no sense.

It is a technology that is coming of age and from this point on will be refined and the problems people criticise it for will be ironed out in time. I just think it makes absolutely no sense calling it a gimmick when logically it is something that was INEVITABLE.

There are some very short-sighted people posting here and I suspect they may be disappointed over the next 10 years when they realise that 3d is here to stay.

It's funny the number of people trashing a technology that's inevitable for the same reason stereo audio and surround-audio were inevitable. A technology that still needs a lot of refinement but you people don't seem to have the patience or the understanding. I just think it's a sad reflection on a society that trashes something without thinking clearly.

I agree we all have the choice though so no one is forcing you to use 3d and I am certainly not going to say you should ditch your 2d hardware and make the change. I just react to the negative and rather narrow-minded reactions people are making here.