View Single Post
Old 02-12-03, 06:17 PM   #63
Hans... boobie...
hordaktheman's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Iceland
Posts: 273

Right, lets put up a hypothetical situation:

System A:
CPU: P3/600MHz
Vid Card: Ati Radeon 9700

System B:
CPU: P4/2.66GHz
Vid Card: Geforce4 Ti4200

System A gets a higher 3dmark score.
System B gets a higher doom3 frame rate.

If you were running a P3/600 with a Ti4200, and were planning
on running doom3 when it's released, and could only afford to
upgrade EITHER your vid card or your mobo/cpu, which one
would you upgrade?

3dmark tells you to upgrade your vid card, while the doom3
alpha tells you to upgrade your cpu.

Which one of them do you believe?

Seems to me the doom3 leak was a better thing than one would
expect. If I were to upgrade to a 9700, I would get more
3dmarks, while a cpu upgrade would allow me to actually
PLAY doom3. The doom3 alpha gave me 30-40 fps, while the
3dmark version of it gave me 8. And they look almost exactly
the same! Now that, my friends, is the essence of this ps1.1/ps1.4 controversy! According to 3dmark, a ps1.1 card has
to render TWICE the amount of polygons that a ps1.4 card has
to render. Do you really think a developer will choose ps1.4 over
1.1, and effectively cut in half a large part of their user base's
performance? 3dmark implies they would, while common sense
tells us they won't.

While pretty, 3dmark03 is no more of a gaming benchmark than
3dmark2001. Although it's well programmed, it is a rather ****ty
design for what is supposedly a gamer's tool.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

hordaktheman is offline   Reply With Quote