Things improve when you drop resolution and detail settings, but it’s hardly ideal and we can’t help feeling Acer should have upped the price and included a more capable graphics card. And with the Pentium Dual Core T4300 processor that’s found on retail models, frame rates will fall further.
Good-looking, but under-powered
In PCmark Vantage, the laptop achieved an overall score of 4359, but once again you should bear in mind this is with the Core 2 Duo P7350, not the T4300. When run in a continuous PCmark Vantage loop, the battery lasted 92 minutes.
So how much of a premium are you paying for these 3D shenanigans? Well, you have to look no further than the almost identically-specified, but decidedly 2D, Aspire 5738ZG, which can be picked up £100 cheaper than this 3D model.
Although the 3D demo material looks good, we experienced mixed results when converting content that wasn’t designed with 3D in mind. Photos and videos remained flat, but we were fairly impressed with the games we tested it on.
The big problem is that the TriDef software places too much of a strain on the laptop’s rather limited graphics resources, and in order to get decent frame rates we had to whack detail and resolution settings right down. Given that this laptop is all about 3D, we can’t understand why Acer has gone for a relatively low-powered graphics card. Sure, it keeps the price down, but it also cripples one of best 3D features. In short, we recommend waiting for a higher-spec model to appear. ®
More Laptop Reviews...
Acer Aspire 5738DZG
Let the Porn flood begin...
As usual it''ll be sex that'll makes it sale...
I recall reading an article on the reg in '04 about a Sharp 3D LCD screen. only problem was the weak notebook it was attached to made it uninteresting and too expensive.
and the Sharp Actius AL3DU both had autostereoscopic displays using lenticular lenses- you get glassesless 3D at the expense of half of your horizontal resolution.
Any non-autostereoscopic attempts to make true 3D available in real life will be stymied by the need for glasses. Anaglyph is utter crap and useful only as a way of describing how stereoscopy works. 60Hz displays (i.e. what each eye gets with a 120Hz display & shutter glasses) give you a headache. Polarised glasses requires two displays, so it's rather more expensive to build the display (though probably the cheapest way of building a DIY 3D display) and unless you've got circular-polarised screens (like the RealD system in cinemas) the effect can be thrown off by tilting your head. Head Mounted Displays by definition require headgear.
Autostereoscopic displays will become more useful (a) when there is a cheap DIY way of building them and/or (b) when large OLED or similar displays become more affordable (they've got potential for hugely increased resolution-per-square-inch (put 4x ~0.5" eMagin OLED displays next to each other and you've got a just-over-1" 1600x1200 pixel display!) so you can have a "proper" resolution in both 2D and 3D).
Anyone who asks "what's the point" clearly hasn't used 3D!