Stereoscopic 3D performance hit? -
| posts: 50 | Location: Netherlands, Haarlem
Hello dear people,
I am planning on buying the Asus VG278H or the Samsung SyncMaster S27A950D, still haven't decided yet. Asus gives better 3D and integrated nVidia support, but Samsung gives better 2D.. but that is not my question.
What I really need to know is how big the performance hit for 3D on my pc is. I am a big fan of at least 50 fps (60 or more pref.), but since my computer is getting old I am afraid it will have to big of a negative impact on my fps.
Do I need to wait with buying a 3D monitor till I get some better gear (though my pc is doing just great now with all new games) or do I need to wait on better monitors or newer techniques?
Specs of my pc (also to the left I believe, but can't check that while making this post :p):
CPU = Intel Quad Core 2 Q9300+ overclocked to 3,4GHz
RAM = 4GB OCZ 1066MHz, adjusted timings for double data transfer and acces times
GPU1 = Gigabyte SoC Geforce GTX470 1280MB
GPU2 = Asus nVidia 8800GTS 512MB (dedicated to PhysX)
SC = Creative SoundBlaster X-fi Extreme Fatality
HDD1/2 =OCZ Agility 3 in raid-0 setup
HDD3 = Samsung Spinpoint 1TB
That's about it I guess. This setup usually gives me 50+ fps in most games with which I am satisfied. But I utterly hate playing on lower then 50fps and if 3D would do that then I am not buying a monitor at all.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this!
Edit: One sidenote, I don't care for those silly ultragraphic options in most new games, they usually give just a tiny bit of extra eyecandy but cost an exponential amount of processing power. Know that I turn those off anyway. So I have some extra processing power for 3D that way.
Last edited by Strider; 04-14-2012 at 22:38.