View Single Post
Old 07-31-03, 01:04 PM   #6
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
o How far in the 'future' are the 3DMark2003 games set? 3DMark2001 lasted for 2 years or so, so perhaps those are like games we might play in 2004 or 5?
I think nutty was right on with his assement. But look at ut2k3 and 3dmark2001. 3dmark2001 scores and ut2ks scores have a strong correlation (with the Kyro2 being the only exception). Both have spend a majority of time rendering DX7 stuff.

Quote:
o Will future games use relatively less CPU time, or will they be like 3dm2k3, only way slower, cause they hog the CPU as well?
no one knows. Its really gonna to depend on the game. Is UT2k3 more CPU or more GPU dependent? Ahh depends doesn't. If you play off-line in AI or its "single" player mode then your pretty much CPU limited. But go on-line and frag your friends, now your in area of GPU limitations. Thus I think your gonna to see games do both. One thing is certian they will need more power

Quote:
o How much influence did ATI have, since they bought the highest level of partnership with Futuremark? (Don't even think of responding to this please.) Eg. All you have to know is that your theoretical vertex processing is 20% better than the competition, and make a scene with simple, but high vertex count to look smarter.
Well good point. Dont really know. Now how about this one. NV has been a long time member at the same level of partnership with Futuremark up until late of last year. What kind of influence did they have all of these past years? How about the GF3 launch. Notice that the Apple Expo where they first showed the GF3 they also show cased 3dmark2001. Then how about the preformance analayzier that NV marketed in sold. Here they worked with Furturemark to develope tool that read 3dmark databases and recomand an NV card as an upgrade to the user.

Cold hard fact is nV has had a longer time smoozing up to benchmark authors. Look at the Good Ol Vulpine benchmark that was used a lot in the past. If you recall they had NV GF3 calls emebbed in their benchmarks. Thus when compared to the ATI cards, the ATI cards (read 8500 vrs GF3) got a much lower score. Not because it could not do the same hardware calls. But instead of using the standard OpenGL calls they use custom NV calls DroneZ was another benchmark tool that also had custom NV OpenGL calls.


Quote:
They're meant to match upcoming games like Doom3 etc.. but.. see next point..
I don't think so. They only thing they tried was Doom3 like shadows which they failed at. Besides Doom3 was built around features that the orignal GF1 had according to JC. Yes it has a few DX9 stuff but by large its not a true DX9 style of game.

Quote:
No. The algorithms used in 3dmark03 are not typical of what games programmers would use. Yes the benchmarks is stressing the gpu, but no it is not typical of gaming performance. Their stencil shadow algorithm is horrendous. Doom3 looks better, and I would say is around 5x faster. Their algorithms are woefully inefficient, which while do a good job of stressing the gpu, dont reflect actual game performance.
Yes we know that. However Shadows were not the only things being tested. Read PS1.1+ and PS2.0/VS2.0 also factors here.

Quote:
I dont agree with IHV's collaborating with benchmarks. A benchmark is supposed to be impartial. But in the olden days, it was quite simple. You simply drew 1000 polygons every frame, and see which got the higher frame-rate. Nowadays there are soo many things that need to be done, and soo many ways of achieving them, all with different performance attributes, so IHV's want to get in there, and steer the benchmark into showing it's hardware in the best possible way, which often ends up not being optimal for other hardware.
I agree IHVs should have no part in benchmarks.


Quote:
Games such as Doom3 that use OpenGL, have different paths to use the best aspects of each hardware. 3dmark03, and D3D dont allow this, so it doesn't represent how games like doom3 will run. As doom3 makes use of specific custom NV modes to get better performance, at the cost of some floating point accuracy that is negligable anyway.
I dissagree here. JC said on more than one occasion he would drop the NV30 code path if the NV3x perfromed better on the ARB2 path. Not every developer is going to want to spend the time and the money to write custom paths for their game. I think DX games will be come the norm with only a few OpenGL titles. I am not saying one is better. But take a look at what you have out today. More and more games are DX than OpenGL. Probably thanks to the Xbox.


The rest of your post I agree 100% with
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote