Originally posted by evilangel
Good points. We agree that we don't like 3DMark and it's useles.
I think you will see ATI and Nvidia growing more apart and doing things their own way.
In reference to Kyle's comment that 3dmark03 was usless, Kristof wrote>
"Note how he talks about the overall score of 3DMark, I think everybody agrees that the total score as reported by 3DMark has no real value - the detail scores however are very valuable and there is no way to possibly claim that they are not useful. Afterall when do you expect that a game will come out with the shader load available in 3DMark today and decent benchmarking functionality ? They keep talking about Quake3, which for todays graphics hardware is pretty much turning into a CPU test (how low can your driver overhead go ?).
In a real game how is he going to check each shader ? Can he run every game using the ref rast so he can judge if the correct accuracy is being maintained and not some hacked looking similar shader ?
All in all 3DMark is a very valuable test set, the score is just a number which indicates that higher is better and it satisfies the most basic user that only cares to check if his system is performing roughly as it should - it also satisfies the tweak freaks so they can battel for the highest scores. "