View Single Post
Old 02-25-03, 03:57 PM   #4
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
I think the reason why 3dmark 2001 became so popular is because of its MAX-FX engine. People tought there were going to be several games based ot that engine, unfortunately only Max-Payne used it.
Do you remember who was hyping 3dmark2k1 the most? nV was at the launch of the original GF3 card. It was the only "tool" at the time that showed off what a programmable TnL (Ie VS/PS) can do for a card/game. NV at that time was the King for the last few years. They had their PR machine in full view and a lot of people said ahhhh nice benchmark. Since NV said its good, then a lot of people did not bother to think. I do agree a real engine was a plus. But we all know that MAX-FX engine performance != Unreal Tournament performance != Serious engine performance, != Volition (red faction) performance , pretty much it does not equal any of the game engines you listed so what good is it then? Then how many real games were based off that engine vrs all the others? Right a couple at best (I can only think of Max Payne) vrs a whole bunch. So I don't buy a real engine as the contributating factor.

Quote:
Several review sites have reported that they won't be using 3dmark 03 as a benchmark, while other will just post them for reference but rely more on 3dmark 2k1.
Yeap its too bad these sites can not think for themselves and have to rely on NV PR. Did you read TR or B3D 3Dmark stuff? If so you can see that most of NV claims do not hold that much water. And the fact that it does not represent real games? WTF? IT has NEVER EVER represented real games. Not once. If they were really upset about this then they should have wrote the PDF back when 3dmark1999 came out.

Quote:
Wether 3dmark 03 represents the performance of future games is questionable. We'll just have to wait and see.
Well we are still waiting to see if 3dmark2001 was representative of games But yea jury is out on 3dmark2k3....


Quote:
So to better reflect the performance of future games, I think that reviewers should use benchmarks that use those engines.
Can not happen. I agree real games is the best but forward looking? What happens when the game engine gets complete overhauled? Based on your statement I could look at how UT preformed and make a prediction based off that of how a card will work in UT2k3? Will a video card today runs JK2, SOF2, RtCW will give me an idea how it will perform in DOOM3? Heck you can not even look at the same engine and predict how different titles will react. Case in point. Frame rates for cards in Q3 do not carry over to RtCW, JK2, SOF2. For example the 8500 looses big time in standard Q3 benches to the GF4 ti4200. But its right on the heels if not ahead of a GF4 ti4200 in the other Q3 based games (RtCW, JK2, SOF2, ect). So even from one game to the next you can not really predict how things are going to run.

Quote:
These are games people actually play, not a sinthetic 3d benchmark.
Synthetic benches give us a guess how cards might perform in future games. A good review will have real life bench and a few synthetic thrown in. You should never base a review off one or the other.
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote