ASUS G51J 3D sports NVIDIA 3D Vision with 120Hz display to bring 'real' 3D to laptops
By Paul Miller 
posted November 17th 2009 8:23PM
posted November 17th 2009 8:23PM
posted November 17th 2009 8:23PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Right when I saw it I was like "Holy SHIIIT", then saw your reply and couldn't stop laughing.
Oh wow that mouse is just the Razer Copperhead with Asus written on it.
That's not really a bad thing. :)
more like "WOW! thats a Razer Copperhead with ASUS written on it!"
Right! I was like wtf?! And then looked at my Razer, and that Razer, erm Asus, and my Razer, and theirs, and mine, and thiers.... somebody help me out of this staring circle?!
It's because Razer and ASUS teamed up to inlcude a mouse with your laptop purchase... That's the only reason it says ASUS on it ;)
eh, where's that 24inch 120hz lcd from asus. a waste for a laptop.
Ubisoft announced full 3D-Vision support for the Windows version of this game
I'm so glad companies are focusing on 3D...
-_-
Yea, it's good to see some companies go through with it. Will be nice when we have the option for 3d in all laptops. Will probably lower it's price and boost it's development so we can lose the glasses for these smaller displays.
My sarcasm detector seems to be half working.
Anyone think this is a good idea?
It's interesting. The GTX260M might not be enough to render 3D at full resolution (1080 for the G51J) for high end games though, there's a performance hit of roughly 33-50% (see guru3d reviews and others). Still, a 120mhz LCD has advantages for gaming over a 60mhz LCD even without 3D.
I think this is a great idea. I think they ought to make one with a 1280x800 or 1366x768 resolution, with a less expensive processor; I'd buy it for up to $800 with a glossy screen, maybe up to $1000 with a matte one. Sure, maybe you can't run "today's" games at 120Hz with this GPU, but there's plenty of last-gen games that'd reach that.
Only thing is, I'm really not sure why they couldn't just put the IR emitter above the screen. The standalone dongle is a little lame, but whatever....
Yup, that's correct, last gen games, namely counter-strike 1.6, is such a joy to play with >100hz, My thinkpad t61p 4:3 sxga+ can run at 150hz, and boy is it FLUID. I hope by now people believe that refresh rate exists and humans don't have a "limit" on fps perception (bah oh wait i just scrolled down nevermind well, i'm getting a bit tired saying this time and time again so here's a prev comment:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/20/sony-demos-19-inch-fed-display-running-gran-turismo-5-at-240-fps/comments/15721830/
every time I see a new Asus gaming laptop, I think "aww crap, mine's so outdated already," but I paid less than a grand for it, so I guess I can't complain.
Or what a great simile. "Works as well has hybrid vehicles!"
Those 3D stuff is crap! Doesn't even work, it's just crap like hybrid vehicles!
what a terrible simile
Is there any knock on 2D quality in builds like this?
There should not be any 2D hit for a build like this, at least there is not any in my desktop. You can enable and disable 3D at anytime within the game, by hitting CTRL + T, and framerates go right back up.
There should not be any 2D hit in this setup, or at least there is not in my desktop. You can disable 3D effects at anytime in the game by hitting CTRL + T, and the frame rate goes right back up.
Inb4 the "but can it play crysis" douche.
Seems kinda overkill. Looks like it'll sterilize those who do use it on their laps too.
But can it play crysis, douche?
3D websites here we go?
I challenge anyone out there to create a design that's attractive when you are not using the glasses (usable at least) and 3D when you do.
How would you achieve it? That's your trouble now!
@(Unverified)
A 3d on off link...
Let me get this straight, I need to achieve 120 FPS (ideally) or 60 FPS (minimum) to play?
I'd rather stick to full res, highest settings 2D than low res or low settings 3D...
Just so the people who know less of what I'm talking about:
-Each eye see's like 24-30FPS whatever
-Monitor refresh at 60Hz usually
-This one refreshes at 120Hz
-Divide the refresh rate by two*
*Because you have alternating images for each eye (somewhat like red/blue 3D)
-Most modern games don't even reach 60FPS
-Anything under 30FPS isn't too enjoyable, so 60FPS on this 3D laptop is actually 30FPS
I can already feel the FAIL.
I'm sure there's some what would turn down the detail to get good framerates in 3D, plus you'll probably get lots of WoW players interested in this; it's not the most up-to-date graphics-wise, sure (kind of a strength here, actually), and it is now more-or-less optimized for 3D glasses, so you'll get fine framerates and great 3D effects.
Disclaimer: I have never played WoW, and probably never will; it would be too addicting for my poor mind.
I stopped reading your comment when I read the part "Each eye see's like 24-30FPS whatever"
No. Wrong.
"Now for the real question: How many FPS can the eye actually see? This question has been debated for a long time. You’ll see threads about it on the America’s Army forums. No one really knows what the limit is, or if there even is a limit. We know that the limit is beyond 220fps because the USAF used to test pilots by flashing an image of a plane in front of them for 1/220th of a second. The pilots would then have to identify the plane. They actually did quite well.
What does that mean? That means that if you could game at 220fps, and an enemy appeared on the screen for just one frame, you could see him and possibly even identify him. This is a gamers best friend, as having any edge they can get is very important. Of course, most systems don’t get 220fps in America’s Army, and even if they did (like Bullet’s computer) you hit one more snag."
http://www.cookieofdoom.com/2009/07/01/busting-framerate-myths/
What?
I don't think you quite understand the concept, or under stand how extra FPS helps.
I'm the owner of a Samsung 2233RZ, 120hz LCD. When playing games @ 120hz, 120fps, constant, the thing is HEAVEN on an LCD.
I can get a video, in a window, move it around the screen and there is no motion blur, I can see everything perfectly, as if it weren't moving. Do that on a 60hz panel and it blurs. I can get a text box, or a window of Chrome, and it's absolutely clear when it moves, because it's refreshing 120 times per second.
For gaming, it's absolutely AMAZING @ 120hz/120fps.
The laptop's GPU is too weak to play most of today's games at 120hz. : (
you have no idea what you are talking about
Then explain it to me hot-lips. This laptop's GPU isn't powerful enough to play modern games in 3D, unless you want to half your framerates you eurasian.
120 Hz is not 120 fps...... A 120 Hz HDTV does not display your satellite TV signal at 120 fps but refreshes the screen faster than a 60Hz TV.It is a factor of the speed of refreshing of the LCD , not of the number of frames per sec rendered by the GPU so your statement is incorrect.
Thanks for explaining it to me unlike little missly Canuck soulsaber here.
@ deccangroove
No. Wrong. The 120hz touted by HDTV makers is not at all the same as the 120hz in computer LCDs.
When you raise the cap from 60hz to 120hz on computer monitors, it does indeed affect the GPU when you enable vsync. The GPU does - in fact - need to render every one of those frames. All 120 of them. If it doesn't, it isn't keeping up with what your LCD can display.
Yeah, it would be good if they supported it.
Mine and multiple people I sold it too, did not work.
NVIDIA blamed Samsung. The tech is stuffed for most people, yet they don't help you.
Very nice :)
120Hz is just the monitor's refresh rate, ya doofs. You can be looking at a static image, and the technology will still work.
It's shutter glasses that have the "knock" on frame rate, not polarised glasses. Neither affects resolution so not sure where that came from.
I don't believe there is any consumer polarised glasses, so I'm not really sure what he is comparing it against.
I believe this tech uses two frame buffers in the monitor, thus allowing you to switch the left eye/right eye views at 60hz even if your actual game frame rate is lesser. Probably why those 120hz 3d monitors are super expensive.
The way I GUESS it works (I regularly game on a 22" 140hz eDimensional shutter glass system and have a eMagin Z800 HMD) is this:
Game sends 1 frame (left eye). Monitor displays left eye. Game sends right eye. Monitor displays right eye. Game doesn't send left eye (not enough frame rate to keep up to 60hz) - Monitor displays OLD left eye. Game doesn't send right eye (again not enough FPS) - Monitor displays OLD right eye.
That way, your REFRESH rate is running at 120hz, displaying 2 different viewpoints to the viewer, even when the game FRAME rate might only be 30-45fps.
Oh, and the consumer polarised products he was referring to were probably the iZ3D and Zalman monitors. I believe these both use polarised tech (as does a 3d notebook released recently). Active has the best quality atm (imho) due to the polarisation tech often leaving a slight 'ghost' image, and 120hz in 2D is always a nice bonus. However, I think polarised tech has a better chance of 'making it' as the eventual mainstream technology as the glasses are dirt cheap and dont require batteries. I think this is going to be a big factor for 3D TV's as no-one wants to have to buy expensive glasses for everyone in the family, THEN have to worry about them not all being charged so you cant all watch a movie at once.
Haha it made me laugh too
I still do not see the usefulness of 3d in computing or entertainment. You have to wear uncomfortable glasses and it's more gimmicky than anything. 3d Movies have yet to convince me that it enhances the experience. If anything it's distracting.
Have seen it on a Win7 launch party a few weeks ago and played some kind of racing game. Very impressive!
The racing game was, most likely, Burnout Paradise, Nvidia uses this game in all of its demos. It does look fantastic in 3D, and enhances the experience, in my, and my friends opinion.
Does YouTube 3D work with this tech too?
And i'd love to try some games in 3D, the price should come down to a reasonable level in a year or two.
3D gaming is a blast. I have 2 sets of glasses, and my fiancee and I are playing through Batman right now, she loves it that way. We are looking forward to RE5, with full 3D support, including out of screen effects.
If you want to try a 3D, you can go to http://www.nvidia.com/object/3D_Vision_Discover_Main.html All you need is a pair of red/blue glasses. Of course there will be a color shift, and I am not sure if the effects are the same as the shutter glasses, but it might be worth looking into and the glasses can be found for free somewhere, and I believe all Nvidia drivers support this now.
Or, go into a big electronic retailers store, they should have a display sitting around.
@Neshi
I have a pair of red-blue glasses at home, but they are something completely different from polarizing or shutter glasses, the colors are very distorted and some of the one eye's image always gets through to the other eye which sucks.
@G
Well of course it sucks, it is free, but that would be about the cheapest way to try and experience 3D, and it is supported by the current Nvidia drivers.
Also, I watched Chuck in 3D with those glasses, it was not great, but still fun to watch.
So with the 3d screen, is it always 3d, or can it display like a normal 2d screen when not gaming? I never understood this idea for laptops.