"3DMark03 combines custom artwork with a custom rendering engine that creates a set of demo scenes that, while pretty, have very little to do with actual games. It is much better termed a demo than a benchmark. The examples included in this report illustrate that 3DMark03 does not represent games, can never be used as a stand-in for games, and should not be used as a gamers’ benchmark."
"Unfortunately, Futuremark chose a flight simulation scene for this test (game 1). This genre of games is not only a small fraction of the game market (approximately 1%), but utilizes a simplistic rendering style common to this genre. Further, the specific scene chosen is a high altitude flight simulation, which is indicative of only a small fraction of that 1%."
"For all intents and purposes game tests 2 and 3 are the same test. They use the same rendering paths and the same feature set. The sole difference in these tests appears to be the artwork. This fact alone raises some questions about breadth of game genres addressed by 3DMark03. --- These two tests attempt to duplicate the “Z-first” rendering style used in the upcoming first-person shooter game, “Doom 3”. They have a “Doom-like” look, but use a bizarre rendering method that is far from Doom 3 or any other known game application."
"Finally, the choice of pixel shaders in game tests 2 and 3 is also odd. These tests use ps1.4 for all the pixel shaders in the scenes. Fallback versions of the pixel shaders are provided in ps1.1 for hardware that doesn’t support ps1.4. Conspicuously absent from these scenes, however, is any ps1.3 pixel shaders. Current DirectX 8.0 (DX8) games, such as Tiger Woods and Unreal Tournament 2003, all use ps1.1 and ps1.3 pixel shaders. Few, if any, are using ps1.4."
"This year’s 3DMark has a new nature scene (game 4). It is intended to represent the new DirectX 9.0 (DX9) applications targeted for release this year. The key issue with this game scene is that it is barely DX9."
"So, where do you find a true gamers’ benchmark? How about running actual games? Most popular games include a benchmark mode for just this purpose. Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2003, and Serious Sam Second Encounter are all far better indicators of current and upcoming game performance."
Also almost all of their statements are false.
1.Pixel shader 1.3vs1.4. They mention the only two games that use 1.3 and state that there are many more without citiing them. PS1.3 is NOT being used in Doom 3 ps1.4 IS. And they never moaned when ps 1.1 was used in the nature demo.
" PS 1.2/1.3 dont affect performance AT ALL. You dont get any performance gain over PS 1.1 which is why is does not make any sense to use them. and nearly no one does. Where as PS 1.4 is a subset of the functionality of PS 2.0 and basically Cuts the numer of passes needed to render compaitable scenes by 1/2. Last years nature demo even in the Nature test only used PS 1.1 even though it came out after the GF4. meaning they never cried at all that their precious PS 1.2/1.3 (that do nothing noteworthy) were not used. Even though the radeon 8500 got completely blown off and not properly supported in any of teh SE benchmarks." Hellbinder quote from rage3d.
2.Plus they are dissing flight simulation which I and many others find one of the best game genres of all time explified by a great game IL-2sturmovik. And WE are asking for more high level interception and bombing runs, which nvidia thinks inane.
The statement quoted above reaks of unprofessionalism. That fact alone regardless of the malicious intention of slandering the hard work of futuremark has completely turned me off of nvidia's products. I will never buy another one again.
You don't see ANY other companys doing this. ATI, AMD, INTEL, VIA, SIS, MATROX. NONE!
Nvidia is just pathetic.
Even my little nephew is more grown up.