View Single Post
Old 05-18-03, 02:51 PM   #34
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 665

The visuals are not what count, the final score is what counts.
The visuals count in the sense that the goal is to maximize combination of "high" image quality and "high" frame rates. One without the other will leave a noticeable hole. The final score is important to a certain degree, but if people do their homework they will know better than to judge based on one synthetic benchmarking number.

The very idea of this benchmark is for it to stress the graphics card, forcing it to work hard. That work is then expressed in a number, the final score. The higher the final score, the more powerful the card is able to work, the more it's therefore worth our money as consumers.
I think this description is giving too much credit to a synthetic benchmark. The graphics cards today are about so much more than a single "number". Many will argue that 3dmark03 does not truly represent actual gaming performance. That's why any decent reviewer will include many benchmark's using actual games in addition to 3dmark.

It's like a race between two athletes. They're told that they have to strictly follow this path and whoever reaches the end first wins.
The problem is that there seems to be no concrete definition about which "path" to follow. Things are just not so simple unfortunately when talking about graphics performance.
jimmyjames123 is offline   Reply With Quote