Originally posted by scott123
Here's the problem with 3dmark 2003.
Futuremark calls it "The gamers benchmark".
Well here is the flaw.
2000+/9700 Pro = 4550
2800+/Ti4600 = 2200
Yet in actual gaming the 2800+/Ti4600 combo will overall out perform the 2000+/9700 combo. Then why is the 2000+/9700 combo over double the score of the 2000+/Ti4600 combo?
Well Futuremark says their benchmark is heavily GPU dependent, and is essentially a graphics card benchmark.
Thats where the benchmark looses validity as an actual "gaming" benchmark.
Nvidia recognized this defiency back in December and pulled out of Futuremarks beta program. I am not brand loyal, but in this case I agree with Nvidia on this issue.
Games that run D3D/OpenGL that come with their own benchmarks (ie- Unreal/Unreal T/Quake 3/etc, etc) are the best measure of performance.
Futuremarks latest approach looks at a narrow area of hardware. PC's are not Gamecubes, and last time I checked, there was a lot more to making a PC fast, then just the VGA card.
3dmark is no longer a valid benchmark, and they did it to themselves.
yeah, and people complained about 3dmark2001 saying that it was too CPU dependent. now that the new version is video card dependent people cry foul. i guess you can't make everyone happy.
GT1 in 3dmark03 is a game test that is pretty representative of performance today IMO. you see high framerates, and it's basically a DX7 game except it uses VS instead of fixed function T&L.
GT2-3 are shader tests. they should test shaders. they shouldn't be CPU dependent.
GT4 is a DX9 shader test i guess, i can't run it.
a lot of people rightfully were mad that the Nature test in 3dmark2001, called a shader test, was more CPU limited than card limited. so basically the premise of that test told you absolutely zero about the functions the test was supposedly stressing.
then again, it seems that FutureMark went from the extremely CPU limited extreme to the extremely video card limited extreme. neither is very good IMO.