As you know, I have been very careful to avoid doing S-3D hardware reviews because I think they put me in a conflict of interest. However, I read an article yesterday that, in my opinion, was needlessly destructive and was based more on uninformed guesswork than actual fact.
Please read this iZ3D review found HERE
[/b] by TechRepublic.com.
According to the article, the iZ3D failed to surpass a modest 22 frames per second (FPS) in 2D mode, and in S-3D, it dropped to a mere 11 frames per second. It was this lack of performance that justified the reviewer to state "maybe some day a company will get 3D right, but it is not today and it is not the iZ3D monitor".
I have several problems with this article. First, and most importantly, it is very inaccurate. With the exception of refresh rate, FPS is dependent on software and GPU hardware, not the actual monitor. I assure you that after years of development, the iZ3D monitor is not limited to 22 FPS in 2D mode.
Second, when a game is in 3D mode, the FPS rating is immediately halved. This is because the video card needs to render two images instead of just one. However, the real reduction in performance is just 20% to 30%, not 50%. Current FPS rating technology does not yet have the means to accurately record FPS scores in 3D.
Third, the 6800GT which the reviewer tested with, is no longer sold. However, I have personally owned a 6800GS, a 7600GT, and a 7900GTX, and I can tell you that his FPS scores are not the norm.
Fourth, working on the premise that the author’s results were accurate, there is no indication that they contacted iZ3D to confirm the results. We don’t know the settings, the circumstances, the choice of drivers, or anything meaningful that would help judge their conclusions.
Fifth, why all the drivers? iZ3D has their own proprietary high performance drivers, why the need for several versions and "hacks" and so on? This doesn’t add up to me.
Sixth, the most critical part of the review was left out - the stereoscopic 3D. Not a single statement about how the monitor works in 3D, the way users interact with the iZ3D drivers, the experience of playing games in S-3D, NOTHING! Everything a gamer needed to make an informed choice was left out of this review.
The iZ3D monitor is not a movie or a final product. It is a continually updated hardware and software solution that is based on user feedback and experience. I find TechRepublic’s review experience very questionable because they didn’t take steps to inquire further about their FPS scores or inquire with others who own the monitor for their experiences. At least, that’s the impression I’m left walking away with.
TechRepublic is welcome to like or dislike a product, and it benefits companies to get honest feedback and ideas to improve their offering, but this is a scenario where TechRepublic was destructive and malicious where there was no cause or basis.
iZ3D is more than a monitor, it is a relatively new business, and businesses feed people. I think reviewers have responsibilities to their readers as well as the products they cover, and in addition to being more factual, I think they could have been more tactful too. I don’t care how nice they said the iZ3D people are, the review was a passive-aggressive attack.
I would be appreciative if our members who own an iZ3D monitor could post a response to the article complete with screenshots of your favorite games in 2D and where possible in 3D complete with FPS ratings above 22. At a minimum, this will give their readers an informed description of the hardware.
For the good of TechRepublic.com’s journalistic integrity, I think that article should be retracted and/or corrected.
Post your comments HERE
[/b].Read full article...