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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-13-03, 01:37 AM   #61
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
My point is, I enjoy the eye candy from 3dmark03, I like to show it off to friends(even though its a slide show), and it's something different and free. If I paid for it thinking that it would be something that it is not. Then I fight. But what's wrong with another cool benchmark/demo?
I wouldn't object if this was all there was to it. I'd just continually say, "I don't care," when it comes to 3DMark benchmarks (except for the purely-synthetic tests...).

The problem, however, is that so many websites and publications put so much stock in the 3DMark score. Many seem to think that an id engine is the benchmark for OpenGL (whichever id engine is the top at the time: now Quake3, soon DOOM3), and 3DMark is the benchmark for OpenGL. This kind of thinking is one big problem that plagues the industry.

And you know what the really sad thing is? Due to the "DOOM3 style" rendering in two of the tests, I think many, many people are going to think that this benchmark is a preview of DOOM3 performance.
__________________
"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 02-13-03, 03:01 AM   #62
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
I don't understand the fuss, the Gffx is neck and neck with the 9700pro, just as most other benchmarks, I think the problem is that the GFFX is a pipedream now, and the separation between the g4ti4600 and the 9700pro is really starting to show, not just benchmarks but real games as well. The graphics on 3dmark03 is simply unbelievable, I can only hope that a game comes out soon that is half as good.
I think the problem is that majority of NV's product-lineup (GF3 and 4 and the MX-variants) does NOT support PS 1.4, whereas just about all Ati-products do. IMO they are not concerned about FX, but they are concerned with their previous products.
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 03:12 AM   #63
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123 Yet in actual gaming the 2800+/Ti4600 combo will overall out perform the 2000+/9700 combo.
Only if the game is CPU-limited. More you increase the eye-candy, more and more you are pushing the vid-card, not the CPU.

Quote:
Then why is the 2000+/9700 combo over double the score of the 2000+/Ti4600 combo?
Because it uses PS 1.4 and DX9, which are unsupported in Ti4600? Because the benchmark is more limited by vid-card than CPU?

Quote:
Well Futuremark says their benchmark is heavily GPU dependent, and is essentially a graphics card benchmark.

Thats where the benchmark looses validity as an actual "gaming" benchmark.
How so? Games are CPU-limited in low settings/resolutions. Increase resolution and settings and you'll be more and more limited by your vid-card. Who really plays at low resolutions (besides the people with crappy vid-cards)?

Quote:
Games that run D3D/OpenGL that come with their own benchmarks (ie- Unreal/Unreal T/Quake 3/etc, etc) are the best measure of performance.
I guess that's why NV didn't whine when 3DMark2001 was used. Could it be because it was a perfect fir for NV's feature-set, whereas 03 takes advantage of tech that they do not really support?

Quote:
Futuremarks latest approach looks at a narrow area of hardware. PC's are not Gamecubes, and last time I checked, there was a lot more to making a PC fast, then just the VGA card.
In gaming, the vid-card quite often IS the most imprtant component in your system!
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 03:18 AM   #64
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
It wasn't coded to be fast, it was coded to put much as much pressure on the graphics system as possible. Hence the utter attrocious performance of the sections that used so-called "doom3 shadowing". i.e. the space station and the one with the 2 ogre's.

The shadowing system done by these two demos was grossly in-efficient, but it did the job of stressing the graphics card.

But I have to agree with nvidia. It _isn't_ representative of games now, _NOR_ games in the future. As no 3d engine coder worth his salt would code something as inefficient as that.
You have absolutly NOTHING to back that up except Nvidia own Statement agaisnt 3dmark03...Funny Nvidia is the ONLY comany of several IHV's making such statements.

Why dont you back that statement of yours up with soem detailed technical info.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 03:20 AM   #65
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
then again, it seems that FutureMark went from the extremely CPU limited extreme to the extremely video card limited extreme. neither is very good IMO.
You know I think that all they have to do to fix that is add teh 2 cpu tests, or at least one of them to the final score.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 03:33 AM   #66
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
How so? Games are CPU-limited in low settings/resolutions. Increase resolution and settings and you'll be more and more limited by your vid-card. Who really plays at low resolutions (besides the people with crappy vid-cards)?
most games released today are CPU limited in all situations unless you add FSAA or AF into the mix. and even then the great majority are still CPU limited.

regardless, 3dmark03 is a LOT more video dependent even with FSAA and AF both turned off.

unless the future is actually going towards the trend of becoming less CPU dependent, which i doubt. if anything games will stay just as CPU limited as they have always been, albeit CPU might be used for things like AI and physics.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 04:42 AM   #67
Nemesis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
most games released today are CPU limited in all situations unless you add FSAA or AF into the mix. and even then the great majority are still CPU limited.
I'm sorry, I don't agree with that opinion. And besides, if yuo have good vid-card, you propably do use FSAA and/or AF.

Quote:
regardless, 3dmark03 is a LOT more video dependent even with FSAA and AF both turned off.
Since it's a vid-card test, I have no problem with that.
Nemesis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 05:20 AM   #68
Onde Pik
Thrakhath nar Kiranka
 
Onde Pik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kilrah
Posts: 92
Default

I really can't see how ppl, nvidia included, cry about the GF4 cards not getting a higher score because they cant rune the 4th test. Well guess what, when GF3 came out it was the ONLY card that could run the 4th test of 3dm 2001, so why didn't nvidia and the rest of u guys cry about it then?
Onde Pik is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-13-03, 06:47 AM   #69
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis77
I'm sorry, I don't agree with that opinion. And besides, if yuo have good vid-card, you propably do use FSAA and/or AF.
what is a recent game with good graphics that wasn't CPU limited? all the ones in my recent memory have been.

JK2, Commanche4, Dungeon Siege, UT2003(look at botmatch scores), Morrowind. i'm assuming that Unreal2 is probably a lot like UT2003. but that is an assumption on my part. i don't know about C&C Generals either. i do know on my friend's system it chops up quite a bit(Athlon 1.4GHz, gf4Ti4200)

i don't remember if RtCW is CPU limited, it's been a long time since i've seen scores from that game. but i think it was.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 06:49 AM   #70
Kruno
TypeDef's assistant
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,641
Send a message via ICQ to Kruno Send a message via AIM to Kruno
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
what is a recent game with good graphics that wasn't CPU limited? all the ones in my recent memory have been.

JK2, Commanche4, Dungeon Siege, UT2003(look at botmatch scores), Morrowind. i'm assuming that Unreal2 is probably a lot like UT2003. but that is an assumption on my part. i don't know about C&C Generals either. i do know on my friend's system it chops up quite a bit(Athlon 1.4GHz, gf4Ti4200)

i don't remember if RtCW is CPU limited, it's been a long time since i've seen scores from that game. but i think it was.
You lucky SOB.
I really do hate the 20fps+ performance hit with FSAA (6x) and 128 tap AF eabled. :/
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 06:50 AM   #71
Smokey
Team Rainbow
 
Smokey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 2,273
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Onde Pik
I really can't see how ppl, nvidia included, cry about the GF4 cards not getting a higher score because they cant rune the 4th test. Well guess what, when GF3 came out it was the ONLY card that could run the 4th test of 3dm 2001, so why didn't nvidia and the rest of u guys cry about it then?
3dmark2001
Athlon700 + GFDDR - 22/7/01 - 2344 marks
Athlon700 + GF3 - 31/8/01 - 3894
Athlon700@800 + GF3 - 9/8/01 - 4531
AthlonXP1800+ + GF3 - 13/4/02 - 8396

Now to me the difference between the GFDDR and GF3 is the same as a GF3 to 9700/GF-FX, yet Im sure in 3dmark03 the gap will be much much bigger. Also the cpu did have more of an impact in 3dmak01 more so than in 3dmark03. One thing that I have also mentioned already, is that never in 3dmark01 was anything a slide show, never!! Now GT2+3 I get 2.6FPS average I cant even watch the damn tests, and even the demo crashes when it gets to Trolls Den
__________________
HTPC/Gaming
| Hiper Type R 580W PSU
| Intel Q9550 @ 4GHz | Gigabyte EP45 UD3R |4x 1024MB OCZ Reaper PC9200 DDR2 | Seagate 320GB/ Maxtor 320GB/ Maxtor 500GB HDD|Sapphire HD5850 | Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Pro | Harmon Kardon AVR135 reciever | Jamo S718 speakers | 42" Plasma 720p (lounge room)-Samsung P2450H (bedroom)
Smokey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 06:58 AM   #72
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
You lucky SOB.
I really do hate the 20fps+ performance hit with FSAA (6x) and 128 tap AF eabled. :/
we're talking about raw benchmarks

and yes, i normally believe raw benchmark numbers are unimportant. but, in the case of 3dmark03 they obviously are not. everything but game test 1 runs so horribly choppy that FSAA and AF are not even an option for anyone who doesn't own a DX9 card.

and i don't think that reflects realworld performance AT ALL. show me ONE GAME where a DX9 capable card scores 4-5 times higher than a DX8 gen card, regardless of the CPU used.
  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
NV30 name poll sancheuz NVIDIA GeForce 7, 8, And 9 Series 72 10-19-05 02:23 AM
Any details on Nvidia's failed NV2 for SEGA? suburbanguy Rumor Mill 1 08-21-02 11:30 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.


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