3dm2003, revised opinion?

digitalwanderer · 06-15-03, 12:12 PM

I just got done re-building Bubbles after me main HD crapped out yesterday, and one of me final tests is always a benchmark run. I really do find them to be a great way for me to make sure I didn't miss any tweaks or forget anything in the re-build, and me fave is still 3dm2k1se. When I got done re-installing/tweaking I ran it and scored within 20 points of me pre-HD dying score.

(Oh, gratuitous 3dm2k1se compare URL

)

But I'm starting to like 3dm2k3 too, it's just as consistant for me in scoring and now that I got the 9700 Pro it's actually pretty cool to watch too.

Bubbles' 3dm2003 score is just about exactly the same pre-rebuild & after rebuild too.

So what is the current consensus on 3dm2003? Does it blow or is it good at what it does?

RAY16 · 06-15-03, 12:28 PM

IMO, the only thing its good for is eye candy. Battle of Proxycon runs at 2-10FPS (2-4 most of the time) on my GeForce 3 Ti-200, but the DOOM III "Demo" runs at 16-30FPS average and it looks much better. It doesn't give you real game performance, it just lets you see all the pretty stuff your video card an generate.

digitalwanderer · 06-15-03, 12:41 PM

Now I felt the exact same way when I had me own GF3 and first ran 3dm2k3 on it, and when I got the GF4 it really wasn't that much of an improvement...still all a slideshow.

But the 9700 runs it at over 30fps average for all me game tests and they LOOK good to me, Proxy-whatever is really sweet when it's fluid and it just seems to show me better what me card can do.

I'm really not trying to bait here, I'm wondering if anyone else started liking 3dm2003 better after they got a DX9 card I guess.

06-15-03, 01:35 PM

Worthless.

If Futuremark can be bullied into saying cheating is not cheating by lawyers, then it's completely useless as a benchmark.

That "different path for every card" thing is BULL****. I cannot express my disdain with Futuremark enough for even suggesting that at this stage of the 3D industry. Five years, okay, but now? Hell no.

Sazar · 06-15-03, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Baron
Worthless.

If Futuremark can be bullied into saying cheating is not cheating by lawyers, then it's completely useless as a benchmark.

That "different path for every card" thing is BULL****. I cannot express my disdain with Futuremark enough for even suggesting that at this stage of the 3D industry. Five years, okay, but now? Hell no.

I have a similar feeling...

the whole selling out deal has left a very sour taste in my mouth...

I still leave my stock 3dmark scores in my sig... more as a reference point than anything else.. I can't emphasize enough how rotten this whole benchmarking deal has gotten...

everyone taking potshots at everyone else while the TRUE guilty party/parties get away scot free... total BS..

Sazar · 06-15-03, 02:06 PM

as a side note... these IHV's should beware... super-saiyans can be quite destructive when royally p!ssed off

wot say Baron ?

ChrisRay · 06-15-03, 06:06 PM

You really should seperate your poll choice,

Biased and innacurrate should be 2 different options.

This poll is biased tho

ChrisRay · 06-15-03, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
Now I felt the exact same way when I had me own GF3 and first ran 3dm2k3 on it, and when I got the GF4 it really wasn't that much of an improvement...still all a slideshow.

But the 9700 runs it at over 30fps average for all me game tests and they LOOK good to me, Proxy-whatever is really sweet when it's fluid and it just seems to show me better what me card can do.

I'm really not trying to bait here, I'm wondering if anyone else started liking 3dm2003 better after they got a DX9 card I guess.

In a short answer. No

06-15-03, 06:25 PM

Quote:

wot say Baron ?

Oh, well yeah. But only those who were actually intended to be made, not those who were made because of money

Kruno · 06-16-03, 03:47 AM

Baron:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6230

I think 3dmark03 is far better than 2001.
I dropped 3dmark01 for 3dmark03 as I am able to relate my overclocking results towards games a lot better than I could with 3dmark01.

View Poll Results: What is your opinion on 3dm2k3?
It blows, it's totally biased and inaccurate.	5	50.00%
It's good at what it does, and it's pretty eye-candy.	5	50.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

06-15-03, 12:12 PM	#1
digitalwanderer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 4,944	3dm2003, revised opinion? I just got done re-building Bubbles after me main HD crapped out yesterday, and one of me final tests is always a benchmark run. I really do find them to be a great way for me to make sure I didn't miss any tweaks or forget anything in the re-build, and me fave is still 3dm2k1se. When I got done re-installing/tweaking I ran it and scored within 20 points of me pre-HD dying score. (Oh, gratuitous 3dm2k1se compare URL ) But I'm starting to like 3dm2k3 too, it's just as consistant for me in scoring and now that I got the 9700 Pro it's actually pretty cool to watch too. Bubbles' 3dm2003 score is just about exactly the same pre-rebuild & after rebuild too. So what is the current consensus on 3dm2003? Does it blow or is it good at what it does? __________________ [SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at." -R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]

06-15-03, 12:41 PM	#3
digitalwanderer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Highland, IN USA Posts: 4,944	Now I felt the exact same way when I had me own GF3 and first ran 3dm2k3 on it, and when I got the GF4 it really wasn't that much of an improvement...still all a slideshow. But the 9700 runs it at over 30fps average for all me game tests and they LOOK good to me, Proxy-whatever is really sweet when it's fluid and it just seems to show me better what me card can do. I'm really not trying to bait here, I'm wondering if anyone else started liking 3dm2003 better after they got a DX9 card I guess. __________________ [SIZE=1][I]"It was very important to us that NVIDIA did not know exactly where to aim. As a result they seem to have over-engineered in some aspects creating a power-hungry monster which is going to be very expensive for them to manufacture. We have a beautifully balanced piece of hardware that beats them on pure performance, cost, scalability, future mobile relevance, etc. That's all because they didn't know what to aim at." -R.Huddy[/I] [/SIZE]

06-15-03, 02:06 PM	#6
Sazar Sayonara !!! Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 9,297	as a side note... these IHV's should beware... super-saiyans can be quite destructive when royally p!ssed off wot say Baron ? __________________ Help to find cures for Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (BSE), CJD, ALS, Huntington's, Parkinson's disease, and many Cancers. Folding@Home - Is it in you?

06-15-03, 06:06 PM	#7
ChrisRay Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tulsa Posts: 5,101	You really should seperate your poll choice, Biased and innacurrate should be 2 different options. This poll is biased tho __________________ \|CPU: Intel I7 Lynnfield @ 3.0 Ghz\|Mobo:Asus P7P55 WS Supercomputer \|Memory:8 Gigs DDR3 1333\|Video:Geforce GTX 295 Quad SLI\|Monitor:Samsung Syncmaster 1680x1080 3D Vision\/Olevia 27 Inch Widescreen HDTV 1920x1080 \|CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition @ 2.5 Ghz\|Mobo:Asus M3n HT Deluxe Nforce 780A\|Memory: 4 gigs DDR2 800\| Video: Geforce GTX 280x2 SLI Nzone SLI Forum Administrator NVIDIA User Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the members

06-15-03, 12:28 PM	#2
RAY16 Defenestration Specialist Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Land of a Thousand Suns Posts: 1,039	IMO, the only thing its good for is eye candy. Battle of Proxycon runs at 2-10FPS (2-4 most of the time) on my GeForce 3 Ti-200, but the DOOM III "Demo" runs at 16-30FPS average and it looks much better. It doesn't give you real game performance, it just lets you see all the pretty stuff your video card an generate.

06-15-03, 01:35 PM	#4
The Baron Guest Posts: n/a	Worthless. If Futuremark can be bullied into saying cheating is not cheating by lawyers, then it's completely useless as a benchmark. That "different path for every card" thing is BULL****. I cannot express my disdain with Futuremark enough for even suggesting that at this stage of the 3D industry. Five years, okay, but now? Hell no.

06-16-03, 03:47 AM	#10
Kruno TypeDef's assistant Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 1,641	Baron: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6230 I think 3dmark03 is far better than 2001. I dropped 3dmark01 for 3dmark03 as I am able to relate my overclocking results towards games a lot better than I could with 3dmark01. __________________ "Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR