Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-11-03, 09:24 AM   #49
Myrmecophagavir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
You are late, they already did that. 3DMark2002 used MAX-FX, the Max Payne engine. I have no knowledge what 3DMark2003 uses though.
Close enough... there was no 3DMark2002, I assume you mean 2001.

But the thing is, all previous 3DMarks have used Max-FX! Futuremark formerly Mad Onion formerly Futuremark was started as an offshoot from Remedy, the developers of Max Payne! They use the same tech, and AFAIK 3DMark03 uses the next generation of the Max-FX engine.

I don't get these people who say it isn't representative of real-world performance. It uses a real-world game engine with game scenes that look exactly like a game to me, maybe I'm missing something. Just because you can't move the camera doesn't change much. In fact, 3DMark2001 Pro came with a game you could play, the first game test with the car in it was playable!

Myrmy
Myrmecophagavir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 09:46 AM   #50
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
You are late, they already did that. 3DMark2002 used MAX-FX, the Max Payne engine. I have no knowledge what 3DMark2003 uses though.
Not quite. It's sort of the other way around. Max Payne used the 3DMark2001 engine. What I'm talking about here is getting the major development houses, such as id software and Epic into the game, for benchmarks in Direct3D and OpenGL.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 10:02 AM   #51
Steppy
Radeon 10K Pro
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 351
Default

I'm pretty sure you've got it backward chalnoth...Max Payne was in development long before 3dmark 1999 or 2000 came out. I'm pretty sure it was touted as using the max payne engine at release too, NOT the other way around.
__________________
Here's my clever comment
Steppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 10:37 AM   #52
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Regardless, it doesn't really matter. It was just one game. Any good guage of performance needs to be over a variety of game engines and scenarios.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 11:11 AM   #53
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
But the thing is, all previous 3DMarks have used Max-FX! Futuremark formerly Mad Onion formerly Futuremark was started as an offshoot from Remedy, the developers of Max Payne!
Incorrect. Both Futuremark and Remedy (and Bitboys for that matter) have their roots in the legendary demo-crew called Future Crew. The people behind FC started the forementioned companies. Of course, they cooperated with each other, they knew each other after all. And there might be some kind of joint-ownership. But the companies were born from FC, Futuremark included. Futuremark was not born from Remedy, rather they were both born from FC.
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 11:13 AM   #54
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
Not quite. It's sort of the other way around. Max Payne used the 3DMark2001 engine.
Incorrect. MAX-FX is Remedy's game-engine that was also used by Futuremark.

Quote:
What I'm talking about here is getting the major development houses, such as id software and Epic into the game, for benchmarks in Direct3D and OpenGL.
So they should use id's or Epics engine instead of Remedys engine. Why? What would it gain? MAX-FX is (like it or not) real-world game-engine.
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 11:15 AM   #55
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
Regardless, it doesn't really matter. It was just one game. Any good guage of performance needs to be over a variety of game engines and scenarios.
If they used id's engine, we would get the case where all vid-card manufacturers would just optimize for id's engine, since almost all impartant benchmarks would use it. Same thing if they used Epic's engine. Variety is a _good_ thing, even in this case.

Besides 3DMark is a Direct3D-benchmark, id uses OpenGL.
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 11:57 AM   #56
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Myrmecophagavir/Nemesis77

just because a small part of the engine of max is in there it does not even come close to real world perfomace.

If you can remember the good ol Kyro2. In 3dmark2001 it lost big time to the GF2 cards (usally about 1000 pts behind stock GF2). Yet in Max Payne it usally was faster. How in the world does a card using a same engine provide such different results?

Becase the way the game is coded responds does not equal to the way the bench mark responds thus its not a good indication of how games run in even its own engine!
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-11-03, 12:08 PM   #57
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jbirney
Myrmecophagavir/Nemesis77

just because a small part of the engine of max is in there it does not even come close to real world perfomace.

If you can remember the good ol Kyro2. In 3dmark2001 it lost big time to the GF2 cards (usally about 1000 pts behind stock GF2). Yet in Max Payne it usally was faster. How in the world does a card using a same engine provide such different results?
Because scenes in MP had more overdraw than scenes in 3DMark? Because Kyro wasn't as good with polygons? There could be numerous reason. People are demanding that 3DMark must use real-life game-engine. It does. But now people are demanding that it must also use identical scenes than in some games?

The point is that the game-tests in 3DMark (Dragothic, Lobby, Race) could very well be from a "real" game. They are not "ungame"-like, they are like real games. And they are done using real game-engine. Of course there is variation
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 01:55 PM   #58
SnakeEyes
Registered User
 
SnakeEyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Lake Zurich, IL
Posts: 502
Send a message via ICQ to SnakeEyes
Lightbulb

Part of the purpose of the 3DMark benchmarks is to test the cards in scenarios that they might be used for in the forseeable future, and not for older games or even so much for present games. That's why many of the scenes wow everyone, but also why it tends to not correlate very well with the games we're playing right now too. That, and the fact that not many people choose to use the same engine for their games anyhow.

Basically, it's a decent system performance tool, to help decide what tweaks are doing and allow better optimization of components / drivers / etc. If you have a specific favorite game that you are interested in, don't bother with the synthetic 'futuristic' benchmarks, just use that game for your benchmarks. (I do this with UT2003 now, since it's about the only game other than the original UT that I play any more.)
__________________
Snake-Eyes
SnakeEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 03:52 PM   #59
T-Spoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 180
Default No damage control

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
Who wants to bet that the GFFX will kick the 9700 in the new 3dmark! This will be unbelievable if it does! Discuss!!!
Too bad. It's not gonna happen. Check HardOCP:

FX5800Ultra - 9700Pro

Det 42.67 - Cat 3.1

Score: 5113 - 4803
GT1 175.6 - 175.1
GT2 35.2 - 30.5
GT3 28.5 - 28.6
GT4 30.7 - 27.1

CPU Score 666 - 713
T1: 69.9 - 79.2
T2: 12.6 - 12.7

ST: 1294.8 - 1499.0
MT: 3269.6 - 2270.0
Vertex: 13.8 - 14.9
Pixel 2.0: 15.5 - 41.1!!
Ragtroll: 17.7 - 20.1

9700Pro wins 7 out of 11 tests. Unfortunately only GT1 to 4 count for the 3dM-score, so that make FX the winner by a small margin.

But check the PS2.0 test... amazing.. what a difference.
T-Spoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-03, 07:52 PM   #60
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
So they should use id's or Epics engine instead of Remedys engine. Why? What would it gain? MAX-FX is (like it or not) real-world game-engine.
Not or. And.

These game engines are used as the basis for a number of different games. I think that the optimal one-program benchmark would use both a variety of different engines, and a variety of game scenarios for each engine.

Yes, it would take quite a long time to run this benchmark.
__________________
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
Chalnoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What You Can Expect From GeForce GRID News Latest Tech And Game Headlines 0 06-04-12 04:20 PM
Nvidia GeForce 301.42 WHQL drivers DSC NVIDIA Windows Graphics Drivers 5 05-29-12 10:12 PM
Enhance Max Payne 3, Diablo III with GeForce R300 Drivers News Latest Tech And Game Headlines 0 05-22-12 06:30 PM
New GPU from Nvidia Announced Today, the GeForce GTX 670 News Latest Tech And Game Headlines 0 05-10-12 01:50 PM
Gainward Unleashes the Sexy GeForce GTX 670 Phantom Graphics Card, Also launches the News Latest Tech And Game Headlines 0 05-10-12 09:28 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.