View Single Post
Old 02-26-03, 08:44 AM   #37
abb
Registered User
 
abb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123
This effort by Futuremark is like amature hour. The graphics look terrible, and the benchmarks are based on conjecture not fact. The 1999/2000/2001 efforts were great, but 2003 IS a disaster.

Futuremark, to be a valid benchmark needs ALL the big players on board. Right now the 3dmark03 benchmark has been deminished, and is not really the benchmark of choise anymore.

I don't know if Futuremark will ever come out with another valid benchmark, but I wish them luck because it's back to the drawing board.

Scott
Actually, the graphics look GREAT! if they do not, then it must be your card. The Ti4600 is a good card (I know, because I have one in my sons computer- but not in my main one). It is just not meant for this benchmark, just like the ATI Rage was not meant for 3DMark 2K1 when it first came out. It is a good benchmark. It is just not for Nvidia cards untill they up their technology and start putting out cards that can compete in todays future market. Nvidia had it with the NV30, but its final result ended with a card that is extremely hot, extremely loud and not that great of a performer compared to the hype that this card had. It is time for NVIDIA to go back to the drawing board. If NVIDIA had a board that would perform extremely well in this benchmark, then 3dmark 03 would never be in question.
Abb
__________________

Athlon XP 2400+ (11.5x188fsb)
ThermalRight SLK-800
A7N8X Deluxe
2x256mb Corsair XMS PC3500
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro (Cat's 3.1)
Soundblaster Audigy2 Platinum
Promise TX2000 Raid Controller Card
Raid 0: 2x Maxtor 740DX 80GB ATA133
Pioneer 16x DVD Slot Load
Pioneer A04 DVD-RW
LiteOn 52x24x52 CDRW
Iomega Zip100
Enermax EG651 530W power Supply
OS: Windows XP Pro SP1
Thermaltake A6000A Xaser II Case
abb is offline   Reply With Quote