The ideal review would include... - Page 2

PCarr78 · 07-31-02, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pelly
For better or for worse, 3dMark will always be used as a benchmark. Everyone knows 3dMark and they can see a difference when new hardware is added or tweaks are made. That "magic" number at the end provides a quick and simple estimate of the card's overall performance...

There are definitely more accurate benchmarks out there....

As for WarCraft 3, I can assure you that the game IS stressfull.....though I can't begin to tell you why...I really can't see what is so taxing about this game....though I have seen how it hammers systems when the eye candy is turned on...very strange...

GTA3 should be used w/ view distance set to max....anything lower inhibits the playability of the game...

I'm a bit confused how you can include Q3 but not RTCW....Surely there is more detail in RTCW than in Q3....So seeing it at high res and full eye-candy should stress the card enough...

I'd like to see Morrowind included.....though I am not much of a fan of Comanche 4....

RTCW actually runs FASTER than q3 on my box.

What we may need to do is make our own q3 stressdemo. The Four demo is good, standardized, but by no means stressful.

GTA3: I play with the visibility at 3 bars and it's quite alright ...

WC3? Dunno. I havent experimented with settings, but it looks like lowres textures + low polycount. Dunno why it's so stressful. I assumed because my box is old, that it was the reason wc3 ran a little slow...

And about JK2, RTCW, SOF2 and Q3...

dont you think thats too many quake3 engine games?

Jk2 is stressful, and EVERYONE knows what a score in a q3demo means. that's why they're good ideas for benchmarks.

I got another idea: Ut2003 beta

Spectral · 07-31-02, 02:40 PM

How do your examples directly relate to videocards that are out now?

My Ti4600 destroys the Radeon 8500 in 3dmark, and it destroys it in real world games.

The 8500 destroys a GeForce DDR in 3dmark, and it destroys it in real world games.

Where is the real world example of your theory here?
I understand the point you are trying to make. And Pelly pretty much sums up my thoughts... 3dmark is for an overall score... It takes into account many things, such as fillrate, pixel shading, vertex shading, bump mapping, cpu limited, fill rate limited etc etc.

It is way more of an overall benchmark, than a specialized benchmark. So, your examples arent really valid... Perhaps if 3dmark only benchmarked the cards say.. memory bandwith. Then a Parhelia would score 11,000 and a GeForce Ti4600 5,000.. Then you could say it has nothing to do with real gaming scenarios.

And yes, all graphic engines are different. It still is a very valid benchmark.

And dont for one second tell me that if you were given a choice of taking a Videocard that scored 20,000 3dmarks over the card that you currently have that you wouldnt take it... Cause if you say you wouldnt, You are a liar.

PCarr78 · 07-31-02, 02:45 PM

Spectral:

Think of tech demos.

While they are impressive, there is no way youll see anything like that in games.

I know for a fact that NVIDIA demos are maxxed out. They use so many polygons and maps, that if you added a few extra polys, it would KILL the framerate.

Think of individual shader tests like this, and youll get an idea why they arent a good perftest

PCarr78 · 07-31-02, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spectral
How do your examples directly relate to videocards that are out now?

My Ti4600 destroys the Radeon 8500 in 3dmark, and it destroys it in real world games.

The 8500 destroys a GeForce DDR in 3dmark, and it destroys it in real world games.

Where is the real world example of your theory here?
I understand the point you are trying to make. And Pelly pretty much sums up my thoughts... 3dmark is for an overall score... It takes into account many things, such as fillrate, pixel shading, vertex shading, bump mapping, cpu limited, fill rate limited etc etc.

It is way more of an overall benchmark, than a specialized benchmark. So, your examples arent really valid... Perhaps if 3dmark only benchmarked the cards say.. memory bandwith. Then a Parhelia would score 11,000 and a GeForce Ti4600 5,000.. Then you could say it has nothing to do with real gaming scenarios.

And yes, all graphic engines are different. It still is a very valid benchmark.

And dont for one second tell me that if you were given a choice of taking a Videocard that scored 20,000 3dmarks over the card that you currently have that you wouldnt take it... Cause if you say you wouldnt, You are a liar.

Did you even read the post and try to understand the example I gave?

Oh, and my current card is a geforce2, so I would take ANY newer card (except an mx)

Spectral · 07-31-02, 02:57 PM

You can bet that Id much rather have a card that could churn out 200fps on their most stressful techdemo than a card that could only churn out 20fps.... Now, I assume that Nvidia tech demos would obviously be optimized for Nvidia cards. But, I have heard that the 9700 destroys the Ti4600 in some of Nvidias tech demos, and scores higher in 3dmark 2k1.

Whether or not the card is STABLE, with high image quality is something that has nothing to do with those benchmarks. That would be a driver issue that ATI would have to sort out, but I can tell you right now.. That if the drivers for the 9700 are stable, I will definetely be getting that card (Thanks to the compusa replacement policy

)

Same goes with 3dmark. Isnt that the point of a benchmark?
Like I said before... I agree with what you are saying to a point, but to say that 3dmark is useless garbage just isnt quite factually right. Those scores do add up to performance on most, if not all 3d engines that are used in games today.

Spectral · 07-31-02, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Did you even read the post and try to understand the example I gave?

Your examples do nothing to validate your claim. Tell me how those examples make 3dmark a piece of garbage. That is entirely the point here.

3dmark always scores the highest real world performing cards highest... And it always has. Which cards score the highest right now? The Ti4600s... which cards have the highest performance in real world games right now? The Ti4600s... Tell me how 3dmark is incorrect then.

When the Radeon 9700 comes out it will have the highest performance in games, and in 3dmark... So, how is 3dmark not a valid comparison? How could you say, "Well, the GeSpectral 10x scores 50k in 3dmark, and the GeCorpDan 10x scores 10k, but those scores mean absolutely nothing and I prefer the CorpDan."

You couldnt say that, because 3dmark benches pretty much every viable piece of the 3d accelerator for DirectX 8.

PCarr78 · 07-31-02, 03:04 PM

Check back here tomorrow

I'm too tired to type right now LOL

Spectral · 07-31-02, 03:05 PM

I am too

cept Im stuck here at work with nothing better to do but post on messageboards. My job is extremely extremely boring.

pelly · 07-31-02, 03:10 PM

I definitely think that we are left to use too many Q3-based games as benchmarks...The trouble is, these are typically the most popular games out there...Nobody wants to see benchmarks from a game they'll never play...

This is the trouble...Though once UT2003 and Doom3 come out...we'll have an easier time b/c they will provide black and white depictions of how a card performs ( very taxing on GPU ).

As far as this whole 3dMark issue...couldn't we just sit back and say:

If card A scores higher than card B is 3dMark, chances are card A will likely score higher than card B in most games.

You are both right in a sense here and all I see is a viscious cycle that could go on forever....Oh well, at least it's amusing to read.

PCarr78 · 07-31-02, 03:19 PM

LOL what's ur job?

Spectral · 08-01-02, 07:01 AM

Xerox Operations/IS for the northern (Detroit suburbia) Michigan DMC hospitals.... And, its a very boring job.

druga runda · 08-01-02, 09:36 AM

Hmmm.

What I would want is.

1. CPU scaling - The processor at 100 FSB / 133 FSB/ max OC FSB.
- for 2 games at least or for 3D mark + a game or two
2. 3Dmark regular - 1024 x768
3. All games benchmarked at 1024 x 768 to give an overview of general performance
4. everything tested @ 32 bit color
5. games :
*Serious Sam II
*Morrowind
*RCTW or Jedi II (just one of them - actually the one that normally gives lower scores overall)
*Grand Prix 4
*some flight sim for that audience
*UT2003
*Warcraft 3
*Giants
* - add in Q3 for good measure with the past

- maybe add a few other genres to see how the games perform in one or the other type of display.

Out of these all pick two again and put them trough the paces - one would be the most advanced - like UT2003 and the other would be Most popular (at least for benchmarking on the other sites) - while that is debatable pick a OGL game if UT2003 is DX - or so, and do from 640 x 480 to 1600x 1200.

Put those two games trough AA tests as well. Perhaps all AA levels @ 800x600 and onwards to 1600 x 1200. - the same two games for CPU scaling at "normal" 1024x768 - or 640 x480 if it shows the change better. -and some CPU scaling + most useful/stressful AA setting

So my methodology - if I was a games tester would be -

1. do regular 3DMark thing
2. Pick two games and do it all on them. One DX and one OGL while trying that one of them is most advanced at the time and the other most popular (but from other stable

)

3. Take a bunch of games - even more than the ones that I listed above - that cover most genres - and test the cards only at one - most popular so to speak - setting. To check games compatibilty and relative performance accross genres instead of seeing the same thing with a couple of games over and over again.

4 If you could maybe you can pick an older game that is still popular like CS and do max AA max Anisotropy -and all other settings max, and see what you come out with - or the same with Q3 - because the border has moved now to that engine - assumiong that all the games before can be played at MAX settings with no problems.

That would be a good roundup. One review to bind 'em all one to rule them all.

07-31-02, 02:40 PM	#14
Spectral DJ Spectral Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit Posts: 99	How do your examples directly relate to videocards that are out now? My Ti4600 destroys the Radeon 8500 in 3dmark, and it destroys it in real world games. The 8500 destroys a GeForce DDR in 3dmark, and it destroys it in real world games. Where is the real world example of your theory here? I understand the point you are trying to make. And Pelly pretty much sums up my thoughts... 3dmark is for an overall score... It takes into account many things, such as fillrate, pixel shading, vertex shading, bump mapping, cpu limited, fill rate limited etc etc. It is way more of an overall benchmark, than a specialized benchmark. So, your examples arent really valid... Perhaps if 3dmark only benchmarked the cards say.. memory bandwith. Then a Parhelia would score 11,000 and a GeForce Ti4600 5,000.. Then you could say it has nothing to do with real gaming scenarios. And yes, all graphic engines are different. It still is a very valid benchmark. And dont for one second tell me that if you were given a choice of taking a Videocard that scored 20,000 3dmarks over the card that you currently have that you wouldnt take it... Cause if you say you wouldnt, You are a liar. __________________ AthlonXP1900+@2100+, Abit KR7A-Raid, Radeon 9700 Pro (core370/mem666), 256Megs PC2100, 2x 40gig WD7200, Soundblaster Audigy Platinum, KDS VS 19" CRT, Klipsch ProMedia 5.1s, Creative 12x DVD, TDK 24x CDRW, 500Watt PSU, Win2kSP3.

07-31-02, 02:57 PM	#17
Spectral DJ Spectral Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit Posts: 99	You can bet that Id much rather have a card that could churn out 200fps on their most stressful techdemo than a card that could only churn out 20fps.... Now, I assume that Nvidia tech demos would obviously be optimized for Nvidia cards. But, I have heard that the 9700 destroys the Ti4600 in some of Nvidias tech demos, and scores higher in 3dmark 2k1. Whether or not the card is STABLE, with high image quality is something that has nothing to do with those benchmarks. That would be a driver issue that ATI would have to sort out, but I can tell you right now.. That if the drivers for the 9700 are stable, I will definetely be getting that card (Thanks to the compusa replacement policy ) Same goes with 3dmark. Isnt that the point of a benchmark? Like I said before... I agree with what you are saying to a point, but to say that 3dmark is useless garbage just isnt quite factually right. Those scores do add up to performance on most, if not all 3d engines that are used in games today. __________________ AthlonXP1900+@2100+, Abit KR7A-Raid, Radeon 9700 Pro (core370/mem666), 256Megs PC2100, 2x 40gig WD7200, Soundblaster Audigy Platinum, KDS VS 19" CRT, Klipsch ProMedia 5.1s, Creative 12x DVD, TDK 24x CDRW, 500Watt PSU, Win2kSP3.

07-31-02, 03:05 PM	#20
Spectral DJ Spectral Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit Posts: 99	I am too cept Im stuck here at work with nothing better to do but post on messageboards. My job is extremely extremely boring. __________________ AthlonXP1900+@2100+, Abit KR7A-Raid, Radeon 9700 Pro (core370/mem666), 256Megs PC2100, 2x 40gig WD7200, Soundblaster Audigy Platinum, KDS VS 19" CRT, Klipsch ProMedia 5.1s, Creative 12x DVD, TDK 24x CDRW, 500Watt PSU, Win2kSP3.

08-01-02, 07:01 AM	#23
Spectral DJ Spectral Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Detroit Posts: 99	Xerox Operations/IS for the northern (Detroit suburbia) Michigan DMC hospitals.... And, its a very boring job. __________________ AthlonXP1900+@2100+, Abit KR7A-Raid, Radeon 9700 Pro (core370/mem666), 256Megs PC2100, 2x 40gig WD7200, Soundblaster Audigy Platinum, KDS VS 19" CRT, Klipsch ProMedia 5.1s, Creative 12x DVD, TDK 24x CDRW, 500Watt PSU, Win2kSP3. Last edited by Spectral; 08-01-02 at 08:06 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
AMD FX-8120 Black Edition CPU Review (with Asus M5A99X EVO)	News	Latest Tech And Game Headlines	0	06-21-12 08:30 AM
Product Spotlight ' EVGA GTX 670 Review Round Up	News	GeForce GTX 670 Reviews	1	05-11-12 12:15 AM
Stubborn screen res problem	Alpsoandso	NVIDIA Linux	6	05-03-12 06:00 PM
nV News 9700 Review	pelly	Other Desktop Graphics Cards	45	10-17-02 12:53 AM
Ideal 9700 review	pelly	Other Desktop Graphics Cards	19	09-07-02 03:00 PM

07-31-02, 02:45 PM	#15
PCarr78 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 505	Spectral: Think of tech demos. While they are impressive, there is no way youll see anything like that in games. I know for a fact that NVIDIA demos are maxxed out. They use so many polygons and maps, that if you added a few extra polys, it would KILL the framerate. Think of individual shader tests like this, and youll get an idea why they arent a good perftest

07-31-02, 03:04 PM	#19
PCarr78 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 505	Check back here tomorrow I'm too tired to type right now LOL

07-31-02, 03:10 PM	#21
pelly Registered User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 681	I definitely think that we are left to use too many Q3-based games as benchmarks...The trouble is, these are typically the most popular games out there...Nobody wants to see benchmarks from a game they'll never play... This is the trouble...Though once UT2003 and Doom3 come out...we'll have an easier time b/c they will provide black and white depictions of how a card performs ( very taxing on GPU ). As far as this whole 3dMark issue...couldn't we just sit back and say: If card A scores higher than card B is 3dMark, chances are card A will likely score higher than card B in most games. You are both right in a sense here and all I see is a viscious cycle that could go on forever....Oh well, at least it's amusing to read.

07-31-02, 03:19 PM	#22
PCarr78 Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 505	LOL what's ur job?

08-01-02, 09:36 AM	#24
druga runda Zeus Gromovnik Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gerbilizator Posts: 374	Hmmm. What I would want is. 1. CPU scaling - The processor at 100 FSB / 133 FSB/ max OC FSB. - for 2 games at least or for 3D mark + a game or two 2. 3Dmark regular - 1024 x768 3. All games benchmarked at 1024 x 768 to give an overview of general performance 4. everything tested @ 32 bit color 5. games : Serious Sam II Morrowind RCTW or Jedi II (just one of them - actually the one that normally gives lower scores overall) Grand Prix 4 some flight sim for that audience UT2003 Warcraft 3 Giants * - add in Q3 for good measure with the past - maybe add a few other genres to see how the games perform in one or the other type of display. Out of these all pick two again and put them trough the paces - one would be the most advanced - like UT2003 and the other would be Most popular (at least for benchmarking on the other sites) - while that is debatable pick a OGL game if UT2003 is DX - or so, and do from 640 x 480 to 1600x 1200. Put those two games trough AA tests as well. Perhaps all AA levels @ 800x600 and onwards to 1600 x 1200. - the same two games for CPU scaling at "normal" 1024x768 - or 640 x480 if it shows the change better. -and some CPU scaling + most useful/stressful AA setting So my methodology - if I was a games tester would be - 1. do regular 3DMark thing 2. Pick two games and do it all on them. One DX and one OGL while trying that one of them is most advanced at the time and the other most popular (but from other stable ) 3. Take a bunch of games - even more than the ones that I listed above - that cover most genres - and test the cards only at one - most popular so to speak - setting. To check games compatibilty and relative performance accross genres instead of seeing the same thing with a couple of games over and over again. 4 If you could maybe you can pick an older game that is still popular like CS and do max AA max Anisotropy -and all other settings max, and see what you come out with - or the same with Q3 - because the border has moved now to that engine - assumiong that all the games before can be played at MAX settings with no problems. That would be a good roundup. One review to bind 'em all one to rule them all.