Originally posted by StealthHawk
no, you are missing the point. 3dmark2001 was great becauseof the database so you could compare systems.
why is this true? because 3dmark2001 was a system benchmark that stressed the memory subsystem, the video subsystem, and the CPU.
now, this is NOT true of 3dmark03. it is a video card benchmark, nothing more, nothing less. the CPU makes such an insignificant contribution to the final score that comparing systems leads to incorrect and erroneous conclusions. other people have already posted this. i don't want to repeat them.
i mean, we have already had people say that some guy with a 1GHz system and a DX9 card scored 2-3x higher than someone with a DX8 card and a 2.4GHz system or something. and obviously the latter system is faster in reality, right?
edit: and if you still don't believe me, have a look at this thread http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...&threadid=7456 even the CPU test of 3dmark03 shows ridiculous results.
The purpose of any benchmark is to compare the competition against a standard. In the absense of a standard (which is often the case), the purpose is to compare the competition against each other. It is always better to have a standard. All the cards could stink, for instance, and you wouldn't know it unless you have something else (the standard) to compare it to.
The presense of a database that futuremark maintains simply makes comparing easier. It does not make the benchmark itself poor or great.
The purpose of a video card (performance) benchmark is to compare the performance of various video cards. Therefore, we do not want the CPU to be a dominating influence on the final result like it was in 3DMark2001.
The purpose of a CPU (performance) benchmark is to compare the performance of various CPUs. Therefore, we do not want the video card to be a dominating influence on the final result. Judging from the comments so far, it appears that 3DMark2003's CPU test is having some problems.