View Single Post
Old 07-31-02, 02:39 PM   #13
PCarr78
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 505
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by pelly
For better or for worse, 3dMark will always be used as a benchmark. Everyone knows 3dMark and they can see a difference when new hardware is added or tweaks are made. That "magic" number at the end provides a quick and simple estimate of the card's overall performance...

There are definitely more accurate benchmarks out there....

As for WarCraft 3, I can assure you that the game IS stressfull.....though I can't begin to tell you why...I really can't see what is so taxing about this game....though I have seen how it hammers systems when the eye candy is turned on...very strange...

GTA3 should be used w/ view distance set to max....anything lower inhibits the playability of the game...

I'm a bit confused how you can include Q3 but not RTCW....Surely there is more detail in RTCW than in Q3....So seeing it at high res and full eye-candy should stress the card enough...

I'd like to see Morrowind included.....though I am not much of a fan of Comanche 4....

RTCW actually runs FASTER than q3 on my box.

What we may need to do is make our own q3 stressdemo. The Four demo is good, standardized, but by no means stressful.

GTA3: I play with the visibility at 3 bars and it's quite alright ...

WC3? Dunno. I havent experimented with settings, but it looks like lowres textures + low polycount. Dunno why it's so stressful. I assumed because my box is old, that it was the reason wc3 ran a little slow...

And about JK2, RTCW, SOF2 and Q3...

dont you think thats too many quake3 engine games?

Jk2 is stressful, and EVERYONE knows what a score in a q3demo means. that's why they're good ideas for benchmarks.

I got another idea: Ut2003 beta
PCarr78 is offline   Reply With Quote