View Single Post
Old 07-31-03, 08:33 AM   #3
Sazar
Sayonara !!!
 
Sazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 9,297
Default Re: Re: 3DMark2003 Review

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Well I have many issues with that.

3Dmarks talk about how this is a GPU and a system benchmark. If you look ONLY at 3dmark2k3 scores then his case is true. However 3Dmarks2k3 records CPUmark scores and reports that as well. Its just that those scores are not factored into the final score. However it reports those scores. If the user does not look at them then thats THEIR fault. Combine the two and you get a nice overall system indicator.

Besides furture mark is about FUTURE games not todays games. The look at:

Gun Metal = Which is a joke to be called a DX9 benchmark. It has one Vertex Shader 2 element (which should be able to run on the CPU?) but supports on PS1.1 Pixel shaders which is DX8. Doh

Unreal Tournament 2003 = Which is a DX7 game with few DX8 features sprinkeled on top.

Jedi Knight II = Horribly CPU limited game (all of the geo processing runs in software)

Comanche 4 = Probably the closes thing to a truly DX8 game test we have.

and NeverWinter Nights. Excuse me but arent these all current/old games? If you want to find out how your card does in todays games use TODAYs games. Futuremark is about games that are not out yet.


He says:



It might help if they would follow their own advice and try to understand what 3dmark is in the first place.

And yes the do have a point that as an over all system becnhmark is poor.

But the pretty damming blurb on the front page is wrong.....
we have an ongoing discussion about this very set of points on b3d...

the fact is that 3dmark03 is said to be something it is perhaps not (marketed as the gamers benchmark though lol)

of course [H] was very quick to jump on this article and hold it forth as representing their own view of things

shockingly surprising really
Sazar is offline   Reply With Quote