Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
Bingo. I wish they wouldn't advertise it as "the gamer's benchmark", because maybe it's true that games don't use the same techniques (ie. PS 1.4). But if you view 3DMark as a test of what a card is capable of rather than trying to emulate gaming performance, it works better. 8500 can utilise PS 1.4 to get things done more efficiently than GF3, so why shouldn't it "win"?
It's like saying "The 8500 wins in app A, but the GF3 wins in app B, therefore app A is a bad benchmark for the card's performance". It's only that app A's programmers made an effort to take advantage of the 8500's extra features. If game developers would take advantage of it more widely then it would win in more tests!
Sorry I should have been clearer, I said 3dmark, meaning both 2001+2003
My point was that fine in 3dmark, the 8500 is faster than my gf3, but im games its not.
Now digitalwanderer added some comments on this also, I dont have both cards myself, so its just from benchmarks on websites. But from what digitalwanderer said, the 8500 seems to be a bit faster now in newer games, this may have something to do with the faster core/memory speeds? Without looking it up, wasnt the 8500 core clocked at 275? my OC gf3 (non Ti) is clocked at 240, which is good for that core.
Back on topic, I dont think Nvidia would slam a DX9 benchmark, 3dmark or any other, just because they have new cards coming that dont support DX9
I havent been keeping up with the NV31 and NV34, but are they not going to support any new DX9 features