Widescreen Gaming Forum

AMD is showing off NTHUSIM Plus again, this time with the new NTHUSIM Plus 3.0 with edge blending at E3 2011. The link below is for the Setups page for the build.

:rockout

http://www.nthusim.com/setup/amd-e3-2011-dirt3-setup

Woot, good to see.

Well done, Brat. What projectors are used ?

Well done, Brat. What projectors are used ?

I suppose I can be bratty at times...but my name is Brad. :lol:

This isn't my build this time around, AMD did it themselves using the latest NTHUSIM build. From my understanding, they used some crazy exotic projectors though. Andy said that he thinks they're using three Panasonic PT-DZ8700U.

10600 Lumens!!
1920x1200 native!! :D

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Panasonic-PT-DZ8700U.htm

[quote]Well done, Brat. What projectors are used ?

I suppose I can be bratty at times...but my name is Brad. :lol:

This isn't my build this time around, AMD did it themselves using the latest NTHUSIM build. From my understanding, they used some crazy exotic projectors though. Andy said that he thinks they're using three Panasonic PT-DZ8700U.

10600 Lumens!!
1920x1200 native!! :D

http://www.projectorcentral.com/Panasonic-PT-DZ8700U.htm

The brightness does look more even than before I think, the previous one had a darker central projector, I assume it's yours as the central section appears darker on your build too, or at least it appears that way from the pics.

Would be better if they showed that stuff done on a reasonable budget so that others could make the same system. Pointless showing it if no-one could afford to do it!

The brightness does look more even than before I think, the previous one had a darker central projector, I assume it's yours as the central section appears darker on your build too, or at least it appears that way from the pics.

Would be better if they showed that stuff done on a reasonable budget so that others could make the same system. Pointless showing it if no-one could afford to do it!

Yep, that's been my main gripe so far with the ones I assisted with. They're unbalanced as far as budget. My goal is to show off designs that anyone can do, but then they slap a $25,000 simulator in front of it, or in this case use $100,000 worth of projectors. They really need to understand that merely wowing people on something like this isn't going to sale it to the enthusiast consumer. The enthusiast needs a much more reasonable $2500 budget for the projection portion of a computer build. Even then $2500 towards something like this alienates all but the most diehard enthusiasts. That's not to say I wouldn't want one of those full motion simulators or a $100,000 in projectors though. I think it's mostly a disconnect with the idea of marketing vs real life configuration. Where they spend $100k+ I can do it for $2500. It's sort of a badge of pride that is even possible. :D

For $100,000 worth of projectors I am not impressed. The area is too small to use them to their potential anyway. I think even using $1000 1080P projectors in a similarly dark room you would have no issues to the point where you feel adding $97,000 MORE would alleviate them. In fact the only benefit appears to be the 120Hz refresh rate listed on the specs.

I'd still probably go with three 720P 120Hz projectors http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD66-2500ANSI-Lumens-4000/dp/B002ZWU33U

Still waiting to see 5-6 720P projectors in portrait with edge blending.

For $100,000 worth of projectors I am not impressed. The area is too small to use them to their potential anyway. I think even using $1000 1080P projectors in a similarly dark room you would have no issues to the point where you feel adding $97,000 MORE would alleviate them. In fact the only benefit appears to be the 120Hz refresh rate listed on the specs.

I'd still probably go with three 720P 120Hz projectors http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD66-2500ANSI-Lumens-4000/dp/B002ZWU33U

Still waiting to see 5-6 720P projectors in portrait with edge blending.

I fully agree with you and Brad (sorry for calling you Brat:). 120 Hz is an important feature if you like to play games - I´m speaking of 2D !!

1080p vs 720p means a higher resolution of 2.25 times as high. If you choose a screen size that is smaller by the same factor, you get the same pixel intensity. Sure, bigger is better but 3 or 5 720p will still be great for a fraction of the cost.

If we keep the screen size low enough (maybe sit closer) the brigthness of the Optomas might be bright enough to use a black screen which greatly enhances black level and contrast like this one here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVXN9H4Wh6E&feature=related

These canvas are simply sprayed with the right paint and quite cheap in comparison to professional ones.

Setups page updated with detail pics. Thanks goes to a few at the EVGA forums, because I wasn't able to be at E3 myself this year.

About S3D, the main reason why I'm attempting to transition over to the Optoma GT720's in my new design is exactly that. When I experimented with S3D earlier in the year I was blown away with what depth perception can do with a full wall projection. My only current disappointment is that S3D gaming is still in it's infancy for compatibility although it's been out since the 90's for consumers. I'd love to do this on an AMD Eyefintiy 5x1L or 5x1P setup, but neither the drivers nor the support is there yet. So far my only successful multi-projector S3D experiments have been with NVIDIA 3D Vision Surround and the standard 3D Vision wireless kit.

S3D is still not there yet in the 1080p projector marketplace either. Both projector manufacturer's refusal to make product that actually matches full HDMI 1.4a capability and the lack of any 1080p DP port projectors are a large impediment to the possibility of 3d Ready 1080p 120hz DLP projection. That leaves the most viable option still as the Optoma GT700/GT720. NVIDIA has certified it for 3D Vision, it's short throw and it just works. there are a few other projectors out there with better short throw, but they're not 3D Vision Certified yet. :wink:

Truth be told, I have a dream build I'd like to do. AMD has always pushed the dream of wanting to make a Holodeck gaming experience. Microsoft is in the process of developing it's new Microsoft Flight simulator. Combine that with functioning TriDef or Iz3D mutli-projector S3D drivers for a 360 degree 5 projector demo at some convention and I'd be in surround gaming heaven. Hint, hint AMD guys. :wink:

Does anyone know if any of these Eyefinity builds are E3 were using he Bulldozer ( AMD FX ) cpu ? I remember reading they were demoed at E3 but doesn't seem like they were covered much. I would curious about any noticed performance of them.

I'm planning a new PC build mainly for Battlefield 3. I'm not sure which way to go at the moment. Seriously considering a Core i5 2400 or 2500K because of the $40 off a MB deal Microcenter has going on now with the purchase of one. But the 8-core AMD FX (Bulldozer) chips have me intrigued. Microcenter also has a deal on AMD Phenom II chips with a free MB, one of which is an AM3+ ready mb which I could use for a future Bulldozer upgrade if it turns out to be a good chip.

[quote]For $100,000 worth of projectors I am not impressed. The area is too small to use them to their potential anyway. I think even using $1000 1080P projectors in a similarly dark room you would have no issues to the point where you feel adding $97,000 MORE would alleviate them. In fact the only benefit appears to be the 120Hz refresh rate listed on the specs.

I'd still probably go with three 720P 120Hz projectors http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD66-2500ANSI-Lumens-4000/dp/B002ZWU33U

Still waiting to see 5-6 720P projectors in portrait with edge blending.

I fully agree with you and Brad (sorry for calling you Brat:). 120 Hz is an important feature if you like to play games - I´m speaking of 2D !!

1080p vs 720p means a higher resolution of 2.25 times as high. If you choose a screen size that is smaller by the same factor, you get the same pixel intensity. Sure, bigger is better but 3 or 5 720p will still be great for a fraction of the cost.

If we keep the screen size low enough (maybe sit closer) the brigthness of the Optomas might be bright enough to use a black screen which greatly enhances black level and contrast like this one here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVXN9H4Wh6E&feature=related

These canvas are simply sprayed with the right paint and quite cheap in comparison to professional ones.

[quote]For $100,000 worth of projectors I am not impressed. The area is too small to use them to their potential anyway. I think even using $1000 1080P projectors in a similarly dark room you would have no issues to the point where you feel adding $97,000 MORE would alleviate them. In fact the only benefit appears to be the 120Hz refresh rate listed on the specs.

I'd still probably go with three 720P 120Hz projectors http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD66-2500ANSI-Lumens-4000/dp/B002ZWU33U

Still waiting to see 5-6 720P projectors in portrait with edge blending.

I fully agree with you and Brad (sorry for calling you Brat:). 120 Hz is an important feature if you like to play games - I´m speaking of 2D !!

1080p vs 720p means a higher resolution of 2.25 times as high. If you choose a screen size that is smaller by the same factor, you get the same pixel intensity. Sure, bigger is better but 3 or 5 720p will still be great for a fraction of the cost.

If we keep the screen size low enough (maybe sit closer) the brigthness of the Optomas might be bright enough to use a black screen which greatly enhances black level and contrast like this one here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVXN9H4Wh6E&feature=related

These canvas are simply sprayed with the right paint and quite cheap in comparison to professional ones.

Great choice for your video demo of your projector. Can't beat a full wall view of Jessica Alba in a bikini !!


** Edit: Sorry for the double reply. I can't seem to fix that.

If you had to built this week I'd say keep to Intel. If you were to build next month I'd say wait for the non-marketing reviews to come out on Bulldozer and then choose what specs best suit you AMD or Intel. Right now Intel is better, but next month only time will tell which is better though unbiased benching once the new CPUs get out into the wild. I've had 24 hours of sit down time with an AMD Bulldozer build for one of the AMD events, but ES is not representative of the final product, so I reserve judgement on the CPU until it's in the wild.

Am I reading to much into it that you weren't very impressed with it?

I'm hoping the 8-core Bulldozer will show its worth in a game like Battlefield 3 which supposedly can take advantage of all the cores one can throw at it. I saw some benchmarks a Russian site did of the BF3 Alpha and if they are legit it finally shows the Phenom II x6 as a worth while purchase where the extra cores make a difference because it was far ahead of the Phenom II x4 and competitive with the Core i5 and i7 they used. I take this with a grain of salt even if they are legit because this is an Alpha test but I hope the final game shows true scaling for more physical cores.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2182821

Am I reading to much into it that you weren't very impressed with it?

I'm hoping the 8-core Bulldozer will show its worth in a game like Battlefield 3 which supposedly can take advantage of all the cores one can throw at it. I saw some benchmarks a Russian site did of the BF3 Alpha and if they are legit it finally shows the Phenom II x6 as a worth while purchase where the extra cores make a difference because it was far ahead of the Phenom II x4 and competitive with the Core i5 and i7 they used. I take this with a grain of salt even if they are legit because this is an Alpha test but I hope the final game shows true scaling for more physical cores.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2182821

You're reading too much into it. I prefer to reserve judgement until I can see the hardware out in the wild and on my own terms. I have no idea on BF3 as I'm not too good at shooters. There is a lot of buzz going around on the game though, so there are tons of information out there to be had. At issue is, just like with using Bulldozer ES, BF3 alpha testing is not indicative of the final product performance either. Most 3D engine and art optimizations come late in the development process for game devs in general, so it's pretty difficult to judge just what to expect either way until it's out in retail.

For me I'm a pretty cut and dry realist. I have to form my opinion about something first hand. While it's interesting to read other's opinion and forecasts on both BF3 and Bulldozer, I'll not know what I think of either until I sit down on my own with both in retail form.