WANTED: 3D VSION SURROUND GAMING PLATFORM

Budget:
$4,500.00 to $6,000.00

My expectations are to create a supernatural gaming environment with both depth and peripheral vision. I would like to create a triple monitor 3D Vision Surround Gaming platform where I could play my games at very high resolutions near or close to 5760x1080. I would also like to play my games at or near the highest settings possible without issue, minus a few patches and drivers that may be needed IOT (in order to) play the games at its fullest potential.

I intend to use this rig only for gaming, and in particular, for BATTLEFIELD 3, which is to say, that this rig is for really just a handful of upcoming titles. This is not my primary computer so I will not be transferring any data, no movies or music, and I do not intend to download a lot of new data that is not related to the games I will be playing.

I am a fan of computers and gaming rigs, but I am by no means an expert like many of you who read and contribute to these forums. I am an officer in the Army, and I recently came back from another deployment, my third. While I was down range, during any downtime, I read a lot about gaming rigs and in particular a lot about Digital Storm. Most of my knowledge came from articles and forums like these, but I don't understand every thing. I certainly don't dig so deep into my research that I cannot tell you what the typical GB/sec small file loads of a SSD are

I know I need a SLI rig, probably a 3 SLI configuration of some sort. What I don't know is the following.

- Should I wait a little longer..Does NVIDIA plans on releasing any new advancements to their card lineup that may be a game changer prior to the release of Battlefield 3?

-Do I need the high end, high budget new chilling system from DS since I will have 3 GPUs?

-Do I need to over clock the processor so high that it would require the said LCS from DS?

-Is a i7 950 enough for gaming at high levels or do I need the new and more expensive i990X?

I look forward to all of your input.

Thanks.

Saved Ticket #: [Please Type Here]

Specifications:
[Please Type Here]

Thanks for the good info sir. When will these high end boards come out? Its a tough decision to wait if they won't be available prior to OCT 25th when BF3 comes out.

Again, thanks for the config advice and appreciate the salute!

Ya IM put it best:

I'd hate to see you spend that kind of money on older tech when the new stuff is right around the corner.

trust us, you will be glad you did, its simple, go forward to Dec of 2011, right now are you glad you waited and got your top of line, brand new tech system? or are you happy you didn't wait? and looking at what you could have had at with that amount of money does not bother you?

it really boils down the that, right now you can't wait, in Dec you gonna wish you had, so its up to you.

Of course there is always some new tech around teh corner and some argue that if you wait for one thing, then its the next and ect, however just in the cpu alone the difference is so big in oc/temps/vcore/performance, and its only like 3 to 5 months away that its worth the wait IMHO.

I could not spend that much money and then watch my friend spend the same amount 4 months later and get a lot better system, lol but thats just me.

You can read more about it here

Our pleasure and good luck

If you have anymore questions feel free to ask us.

Anglis he is is talking about doing 3D not regular gaming, for 3D you will need twice as much power as regular gaming.

for bf3 at that res even in regular gaming I think he might need tri sli, not sure till the game comes out.

Edited by DST4ME - 29 Jun 2011 at 6:20am

Well right now, the 3gb version is doing well with some games with 3D vision.  For BF3...in 3D with surround, that will even bring 3 GTX 580's to their knees haha.  3D gaming is still "beta" unfortunately for optimization.

I know Mafia II, NFS, Just Cause 2, Crysis 2 (not much of a performance hit with 3D on that one) can all be maxed out with two GTX 580's.  Now some games, yeah you won't max out haha.  You'll have to settle with no AA when 3D vision is enabled.  3 way sli will definitely be more safe proof though!

Yeah 3D tv without glasses will be awesome! I tried my friends setup, which is making me go 3D surround myself, and the glasses shockingly enough, didn't really dim the color as bad as I thought it would, especially with games made with 3D vision in mind.  I mean, most games work with 3D, but they weren't made with 3D in mind.

I will say, 3D in first person shooters is not recommended in multiplayer haha.  But some games are great! NFS, i mean in surround, you feel like you're in the pit of the car.  Oblivion looks great too.   Battle Field 2 was awesome. And probably the coolest was World of Warcraft.

true pc game development in general has been put in the back seat since most companys are just porting over games to the pc. Nvidia and everyone else needs to find a gimmick to warrant all this extra power that current video cards offer. Me personally id stick to 3 monitor gaming if i had to choose, some games do this very well and some do it awful. Problem with all this is its at the drivers mercy so its quite possible some if not most of the games you want to play will be gimped for 3d/3 monitor gaming. I still think 3d is in its infancy as far as technology goes

Edited by RiceEatin2000GT - 29 Jun 2011 at 2:35pm

I'm going 3D as soon as:

A. I get 240hz refersh

B. don't need glasses

c. its works correctly for most stuff.

lol not exaclty, I think glassless is around a year or so away (wishful thinking), and I think in a year or so 3D will be much better, that leaves us with the 240hz refresh, lol hopefully that does not take sun rising from the west

As for the "no glasses 3D" I am with the understanding that 3D without glasses is definately coming soon, but the quality will not be as good as with glasses.  I have a very high Hi-Fi and home cinema setup here in our loft (3 deployments of no tax savings) and I have 3D.  I had the Eurpoean rep for JVC over for a party with other Hi-Fi dudes and we were talking about the advancements in 3D. 
He stated that the market wants no glasses tech, but the real high end customers will always remain with the "glasses" technology due to its better quality.

Better Quality?  What does that entail?  Several things...

-Better resolution
- Less Ghosting
- Better Depth

What do you guys feel about this and what is your research telling you?

Originally posted by Dragoonseal Originally posted by roccoatwar I totally agree about the monitors needing a refresh rate of "at least" 240hz.  I currently have a 480hz LED TV from LOEWE.  The technology is already there for standard TVs and Home Cinemas with 240hz common ground and 480hz at the high end, so, why aren't monitors at that level? Aren't all/most 480hz TVs plasma? Or do they have LCDs listed at 480hz? There's really big differences between plasma specs and LCD specs. As far as I've read plasma has phenomenal response times, but somewhere along the line this has gotten twisted into being reported as extremely high refresh rates, which is not the same thing. As far as I know 2560x1600@60Hz and 1920x1200@120Hz are pushing right up against the bandwidth limit of current DVI-D and HDMI cables, so these 240Hz or 480Hz TVs or monitors are pretty much flat out bullsh*t. All they do is take a 1920x1080@120Hz or 1280x720@240Hz signal and interpolate (double) it, it's not true 240Hz or 480Hz. As for TVs versus monitors, TVs just plain don't have the crispness and color quality of monitors. TVs are meant to be viewed from across the room, where you don't need these things, monitors are viewed from 2 feet or less in front of your face and depend on the superior picture quality and accuracy. Whereas generally TVs are designed to excel at displaying moving images, needing low response times, blurring effects, and the like.

This is true, there is no true 240hz TV's yet.  It's all a marketing gimmick, they are sli with their words!

Ok.  So...as for me att (at this time) with my preferences and price points (high budget-high expectations) do you think that BF3 will look good if not great in 3D Vision Surround with the following specs below.

-I wait for the new X79 SB-E Procs and Mobos

-3 way SLI rig

- good 120hz monitor

This game looks amazing, and I am willing to pay a boat load for a good perfoming rig that will allow me to play this games with my mates on 3 screens, sometimes in 3D.

I believe the current setups available today are not the best,....but good enough to enjoy a FPS like BF3 for a long time.

Your thoughts?

Originally posted by roccoatwar Ok.  So...as for me att (at this time) with my preferences and price points (high budget-high expectations) do you think that BF3 will look good if not great in 3D Vision Surround with the following specs below.-I wait for the new X79 SB-E Procs and Mobos-3 way SLI rig- good 120hz monitorThis game looks amazing, and I am willing to pay a boat load for a good perfoming rig that will allow me to play this games with my mates on 3 screens, sometimes in 3D.I believe the current setups available today are not the best,....but good enough to enjoy a FPS like BF3 for a long time.Your thoughts?

for one monitor your experience is gonna be great, for 3 monitors on 3d, thats gonna be a different story to be honest, there is not enough gpu power to run 3 monitors in 3D and have all high settings and etc, but tri sli 580 3GB is gonna be as close to it as you can get right now.

3 monitors and no 3D tri sli 580 is gonna do very very good.

Once you have a good foundation, mobo/cpu/psu, you can upgrade gpus to have great performance as the years go on.

Edited by DST4ME - 01 Jul 2011 at 1:15pm

Originally posted by Dragoonseal Originally posted by roccoatwar I totally agree about the monitors needing a refresh rate of "at least" 240hz.  I currently have a 480hz LED TV from LOEWE.  The technology is already there for standard TVs and Home Cinemas with 240hz common ground and 480hz at the high end, so, why aren't monitors at that level? Aren't all/most 480hz TVs plasma? Or do they have LCDs listed at 480hz? There's really big differences between plasma specs and LCD specs. As far as I've read plasma has phenomenal response times, but somewhere along the line this has gotten twisted into being reported as extremely high refresh rates, which is not the same thing.As far as I know 2560x1600@60Hz and 1920x1200@120Hz are pushing right up against the bandwidth limit of current DVI-D and HDMI cables, so these 240Hz or 480Hz TVs or monitors are pretty much flat out bullsh*t. All they do is take a 1920x1080@120Hz or 1280x720@240Hz signal and interpolate (double) it, it's not true 240Hz or 480Hz.As for TVs versus monitors, TVs just plain don't have the crispness and color quality of monitors. TVs are meant to be viewed from across the room, where you don't need these things, monitors are viewed from 2 feet or less in front of your face and depend on the superior picture quality and accuracy. Whereas generally TVs are designed to excel at displaying moving images, needing low response times, blurring effects, and the like.

best post here +111111111111111111111

Originally posted by Invader Mig I was under the impression that HDMI couldn't do 1920x1080 @120hz. That's why when you do 3D on a PS3, the res gets bumped down to 720p. I was talking to a friend and doing a little research, and from what I've gathered there is no such thing as a true 120hz TV at all. Unless there's some TV out there with Dual Link dvi or display port, as those are the only ports capable of carrying such a signal as far as I know. The way 3D tv's do 3D is with that checkerboard thing, or 1080p at @24hz (Bluray). Even the new 3D Samsung TV/Monitor displays run at 60hz. Only the regular monitors in that line do true 120hz in 2D. Ok, so a bit of a correction. Apparently HDMI cables are capable of carrying that bandwidth, but there is no hardware that actually accepts 120hz signals via HDMI, which makes no sense at all to me. Blurays are at 24p, and TVs/Monitors only accept either 24p or 60p from HDMI. I read somewhere it has something to do with the HDMI chipsets not supporting it. Not even sure if that's the right terminology to use in this case. Still, the wire itself can carry the signal, but no hardware can accept a 120hz signal via HDMI.

Interesting, a bit of research and I read the same thing, that there is no such thing as an actual 120Hz TV yet. For 3D TVs you are limited to either 1280x720@60Hz or 1920x1080@24Hz, and the only way to see 2D at 120Hz is an actual 120Hz PC monitor (which, via glasses and software like Nvidia has you can break that intro 3D at 1920x1080@60Hz). So that means these "240Hz" and "480Hz" TVs must really just interpolate the baby Jesus Christ out of any signal you feed them, and/or just pointlessly display the same frame 20 god damn times.

This amusing night of research has reminded me of a few things:
1) There is no spoon.
2) TV manufacturers lie even more than motherboard manufacturers, if such a thing is even possible.
3) If you're going to plop down a grand or more on a TV you had better do some careful god damned research into what you think you are buying, because chances are all that it's all a bunch of bullsh*t and your $5000 penis enlarging TV isn't any better than a significantly cheaper sanely priced one.