View Single Post
Old 02-18-03, 12:18 PM   #42
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
that's just the problem. everything would be fine and dandy if Futuremark didn't advertise 3dmark03 as "the gamer's benchmark." i don't know about you, but as a gamer, i want a game that depicts some facet of realworld performance. and that means taking into account the CPU.

i don't think anyone is contesting that 3dmark03 is a video intensive benchmark. it is. and the results show that it is very clearly without a doubt. they are contesting that it shouldn't be, since that is not indicative of a realistic gaming experience.
There are three general categories of performance for games. These categories are: 1) graphics, 2) CPU, and 3) impact of sound on CPU performance.

3DMark2003 measures performance in all three categories separately. Thus, as a gamer, I would know if I would require a CPU upgrade or a graphics card upgrade by comparing the scores I received to everyone else that cared to upload their scores to ORB.

Benchmarking UT or Doom3 or any other game does little to determine where the bottleneck is for the inexperience user. How many times did the "question" come up after benchmarking using a favorite game? You know, "do I need to upgrade my CPU or graphics card to get better frame rates?"

You people need to stop treating 3DMark2003 as if it was just a single benchmark test. It is not single benchmark test. Throughout Futuremark/Madonion's history, 3DMark was never a single benchmark test. It is a collection of benchmarks. With the exception of 3DMark2001, 3DMark had separate scores for the graphics portion and CPU portion, and each portion consisted of multiple benchmark tests.
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote