Mike's 3DMark Commentary

[sebazve]

Originally posted by batterbrain101
It's not that 3dmark sucks, its that drivers get optimized for increased performace for the benchmark but the performance of games doesn't improve (not with the last dozen or so det relaese anyway) I personally have no prob with 3dmarks etc., I paid for a video card so I can play games at full tilt with no issues, etc, who wants to spend serious cash on a card only to get home and find that while the benchmark ran just fine, that awesome game (s) aren,t because of the driver /game/hardware are having compatibility issues. That's always a nice feeling right? Now your thinking great X amount of money for this. Nice.

ok then so stop optimizing drivers fo 3dmark and spend more time with games but then dont trash 3dmark or any bechmark only because your driver and product sucks at it....

[Uttar]

Originally posted by sebazve
ok then so stop optimizing drivers fo 3dmark and spend more time with games but then dont trash 3dmark or any bechmark only because your driver and product sucks at it....

But if you didn't optimize for 3DMark, what stops your competitor to do so and crush you in it?
And if you optimize a lot of games to run faster on your GPU via drivers, wouldn't it be reasonable to give such a boost to 3DMark too, to reflect real-world performance?

There's really no easy fix to all this...


Uttar

[sebazve]

Originally posted by Uttar
But if you didn't optimize for 3DMark, what stops your competitor to do so and crush you in it?
And if you optimize a lot of games to run faster on your GPU via drivers, wouldn't it be reasonable to give such a boost to 3DMark too, to reflect real-world performance?

There's really no easy fix to all this...


Uttar

or you can also try to make understand people that a 3dmark score doesnt mean ****! pretty much like amd does with mhz thingy...

Ah, but AMD uses a "megahertz equivalent" performance rating or some stupid crap like that. So no. There's really been no education to speak of here.

It's still "higher number on hardware automagically equals way higher performance." This SOMEHOW has to change. But it won't, at least not for a while...

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by pelly
I honestly can't see why anyone would try to attack Kyle or HardOCP. At the end of the day, these articles and editorials are intended to benefit the consumer...For those grasping at straws and claiming that [H] is an NVIDIA-fanboy...I must remind you of the dozens of times [H] has been on NVIDIA's case for an issue. In addition, you might remember that Radeon 9700 Pro's are in each review testbed and that we were less than "blown away" ( ironic ) by the GeForce FX.

Hey Pelly, personally, I love [H]. I think its one of the best, if not the best hardware sites around. Very informitive, only gripe is the forums, you think you could get any more of em' in there? But really, I think that site beats this one, I just don't know anyone there

[pelly]

Come over and introduce yourselves...you'll find an amazing knowledge base...

We can always use some good guys like you man...I'll keep an eye out for you!

Originally posted by The Baron
Ah, but AMD uses a "megahertz equivalent" performance rating or some stupid crap like that. So no. There's really been no education to speak of here.

It's still "higher number on hardware automagically equals way higher performance." This SOMEHOW has to change. But it won't, at least not for a while...

it never will. i still remember hearing people bragging about their "awesome" P4 systems even last year that had SDRAM and a TNT2 in them.