View Single Post
Old 02-17-03, 02:12 AM   #14
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Smokey
It also DOES not reflect game performance. The 8500 was faster in 3dmark than my gf3, yet in games it wasnt
And my 8500 is faster in both 3dm2k3 & 3dm2k1se than my GF3 (but gets edged out in 3dm2k & futuremark99), and I also prefer my GF3 to game on. Why? Because it's better, smoother, faster, cleaner looking and it plays all the games I like a lot better.

Trouble is, my GF3 is starting to show it's age...especially with U2. It's weird, but the newer games (with the exception of GTA3, which is R*s fault) are starting to run better on my 8500 than my GF3. NOLF2, SoF2, & UT2k3 I'd really have to say might be nudging ahead of my GF3 in the actual gaming department...if you add in AA & AF it'd be a "gimme" to my 8500.

This test is supposed to be reflective of what games are going to be, and in that I don't think ANYONE can tell yet if it is or isn't. It's just a benchmark for now, I'm planning on not taking it too seriously yet.

Well, at least until some games come out that actually justify me upgrading my hardware to a level that will make this benchmark less of a slideshow on my system. Til then I'm planning on sticking with 3dm2k1se for a while longer as me DX bench of choice. It's a hell of a lot more reflective right now of the games I like to play.
__________________
[SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at."
-R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote