Go Back   nV News Forums > Website Related > Feedback Forum

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-03, 05:40 PM   #61
Lonestar
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 13
Default Re: Mike's 3DMark Commentary

You could consider 3Dmark03 as a game. Actually it is a game, the only difference is that you donít get to control the character. A higher score in 3Dmark means overall better performance. By overall I mean that itís a general estimation how good your system (not only your GP) is. Most games rarely use state of the art rendering techniques which means they get could get rather high score in a particular game but maybe not with 3DMark.

Choose between a GP, which gives you more points in 3DMark and one generates a much lower score, what would you choose? No one here could possibly go for a lower score.

Graphic is graphic, no matter if you control the viewpoint or not. Nvidia is whining!
__________________
Asus P5W DH, C2D E6600 @ 3GHz, 4G RAM, 8800 GTS 640Mb @ 630/1000. VISTA 64.

Hooked on PC gaming since VIC 20.
Lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:49 PM   #62
batterbrain101
"TAZ LIKE!"
 
batterbrain101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spokane, Washington, USA
Posts: 190
Default

Right, I realise that, it's good as a reference, but doesn't always relate directly to games, I just thinks more emphasis should be place on optimizing drivers for the actual games, not a simulation based on one benchmark's prerequisites. I used 3dmark as a utility to test changes I makes to my system, but if the games suffer while 3dmark sais its better, the game wins the arguement and the changes get undoe.
__________________
My village called, their Idiot is missing!

My rig:
Asus Maximus VI Hero
Intel i7 4770K@ 4.2 GHz
8 GB G-Skill Trident X DDR3 2400 Ram
Corsair 750HX "Silver Certified" PSU
Corsair H70 Hydro CPU Cooler
2x EVGA GTX 560 Ti SC 1024 MB in SLI
180 GB Intel 520 SSD
2 TB Barracuda HD, 2 TB WD Caviar Green
Logitech G-510 Keyboard
Windows 7 Professional 64 bit
3 Samsung 24" LED SyncMaster Monitors

batterbrain101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 06:17 PM   #63
hordaktheman
Hans... boobie...
 
hordaktheman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Iceland
Posts: 273
Default

Right, lets put up a hypothetical situation:

System A:
CPU: P3/600MHz
Vid Card: Ati Radeon 9700

System B:
CPU: P4/2.66GHz
Vid Card: Geforce4 Ti4200

System A gets a higher 3dmark score.
System B gets a higher doom3 frame rate.

If you were running a P3/600 with a Ti4200, and were planning
on running doom3 when it's released, and could only afford to
upgrade EITHER your vid card or your mobo/cpu, which one
would you upgrade?

3dmark tells you to upgrade your vid card, while the doom3
alpha tells you to upgrade your cpu.

Which one of them do you believe?

Seems to me the doom3 leak was a better thing than one would
expect. If I were to upgrade to a 9700, I would get more
3dmarks, while a cpu upgrade would allow me to actually
PLAY doom3. The doom3 alpha gave me 30-40 fps, while the
3dmark version of it gave me 8. And they look almost exactly
the same! Now that, my friends, is the essence of this ps1.1/ps1.4 controversy! According to 3dmark, a ps1.1 card has
to render TWICE the amount of polygons that a ps1.4 card has
to render. Do you really think a developer will choose ps1.4 over
1.1, and effectively cut in half a large part of their user base's
performance? 3dmark implies they would, while common sense
tells us they won't.

While pretty, 3dmark03 is no more of a gaming benchmark than
3dmark2001. Although it's well programmed, it is a rather ****ty
design for what is supposedly a gamer's tool.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

-Aristotle
hordaktheman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 06:18 PM   #64
bloodbob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 123
Default

My opion is maybe nvidia should be calling Futuremarks rather than nVnews to try to sort this thing out.
bloodbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 07:10 PM   #65
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

I am still so pissed off about this that I am really having to be careful what i write. I just cant believe how many people are falling for and supporting Nvidia's out misinformation. It's sickening.

The whole point is that 3dmark03 is future looking not past looking. Every single solitary comment nvidia made in their PR releases are complete and utter rubbish. I will not apologize for speaking the truth, or try to tone down the message. There is no balance, there is no middle ground in this case. The ONLY thing that anyone could say is no more synthetic tests and leave it at that.

The bottom line is that over the next 3 years we are going to see exactly what 3dmark is offering. Hell They have dozens and dozens of developers and hardware companies in the beta program all entering input. Only Nvidia withdrew.

1. Future games are going to use PS 1.1, PS 1.4, and PS 2.0
2. Future games are going to use a lot of basic Vertex shader 1.1
3. Future games are going to be single texture with PS and VS
4. Future games will primarily use a lot of DX8 features to their fullest and incorperate partial DX9 support. meaningthe occasional PS 2.0 or Vertex shader 2.0 functionality.

I dont see how anyone can debate that wile treating the future with an honest eye. it follows the eact pattern of the last 3 years and its technology of T&L etc. Do we really need to go over again how PS 1.3 support would not have affected the outcome of any scores for Nvidia? it does not have that functionality. Further their origional GF3 series does not support PS 1.3 thus 3dmark HAD to use PS 1.1 for the greatest Nvidia compatability.

Look at the pattern its exactly the same as the last 3dmark, it heavily used the first generation of DX7, and incorperated features of DX8 here and there. The same will be true with the next 3dmark it will have a little DX8, heavy use of DX9, and begin to incorperate dX10.

The truth is so obvious it is beyond me how it seems that so many are falling for nothing but cheap PR misinformation tactics
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 07:30 PM   #66
Hellbinder
 
Hellbinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CDA
Posts: 1,510
Default

Quote:
I totally agree with this post, most sense anyone has talked on here. It seems like nvidia were conned by Futuremark/ATI, as the techniques nvidia use are not present in 3D Mark and only ATI's are hence the huge score difference between Geforce4 and Radeon Pro. Nvidia have a brilliant arguement due to this.
This is complete and total BS. Volt, how do you expect me not to get upset at what Nvidia have already done to peoples reasoning of the whole situation?? strengthened by people like Kyle???

Look at the evidence

This is all becuase people do not know anything about technology and all they go buy are the one bogus PR statement released by Nvidia after the next.

1. PS 1.3 adds no significant speed or functionality to anything
2. PS 1.3 is not supported by GF3's
3. PS 1.4 adds significatnt functionality and is already being added in patches to exsisting games, and will be used in upcomming games like Doom-III (openGL equivalent to ps 1.4)
4. PS 1.4 will be used by future developers becuase is increases performance
5. Developers cannot use ps 1.3 and maintain compatability with all of Nvidias dx8 classed cards.
6 SIS, S3, Trident, PowerVR, nor any other company backed out fo the beta program
7. Countless game developers were involved and all had input into what was included
8. Vertex shader 1.1 is going to be a staple of future games comming in the next 2-3 years.
9. all DX8 classed hardware fully and correctly support VS 1.1
10. Read my above thread.
Hellbinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 09:44 PM   #67
sebazve
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Montevideo, Uruguay
Posts: 421
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by FrgMstr
Hellbinder, you don't have to be rude to have a discussion with me. I would ask that you calm down as you get way too emotional about these things and I think that in turn leads you to not think clearly.

For the sake of your argument (and you have changed gears a bit on what youÔŅĹre complaining about in your last post) let's say you are 100% fully correct and 3DMark03 is the greatest thing since sliced bread and you are going to use it for all of your benchmarking needs.

Please read what we have to say here as this issue is much bigger than arguments about the validity of 3DMark03. 3DMark03 simply is a great example of what is wrong with 3D benchmarks IMO.

I find it hard to argue that we would not want more real world benchmarks. If you want to keep using 3DMark, then you certainly can. We on the other hand are not.
what i dont understan from you guys is that for years you haven been using 3dmark as a benchmark but now since nvidia says it sucks you think that too.
Nvidia and ATI do spend time optimizing their drivers for 3dmark so what??? they have been doing since the first one...i havent seen you before complaning about the use of this bench...
or you just have realized that in fact they do this???

in fact nvidia started this, then ATI saw that 3dmark had an influence on people and start doing the same thing.
__________________
Signatures are a waste of bandwidth!
thanks rwolf!!!!! :-P
sebazve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 10:55 PM   #68
The Baron
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Now that I think about it, maybe I WILL write a way to run several benchmarks in succession and then create a formula to give an overall score.

Heh... might be more useful than 3DMark200x. Yes, I think 2001 is a POS. I think 2003 is a POS. I've had games give me minimum framerates 10 or 15 FPS higher after I did some goofy tweak or driver change, but my 3DMark score would go down 500 points. I'd say, "WTF!?" and go back to enjoying my now-even-niftier gaming.

I'd much rather have standard benchmark utilities based on real games rather than Synthetic Benchmark of the Week (VulpineMark, SharkMark, whatever the PowerVR one was, the list goes on and on) so then maybe driver teams would spend time optimizing for games instead of entirely for 3DMark.

Oh well, I can dream, can't I.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 11:30 PM   #69
volt
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 1,556
Default

In my opinion FutureMark doesn't represent anything, especially with their new 3DMark.

It's not representative of how games will ran, especially when talking about DX 7.0 based cards. It's more of a show-off benchmark, it's simply NOT for older cards or any other serious benchmarking.



Yes the infamous roll eye
__________________
[b]Optimization guidelines by Koji Ashida of NVIDIA:[/b][list][*]Use fx12 instructions whenever possible[*]Use lowest pixel shader version[/list][url=http://developer.nvidia.com/docs/IO/10878/ChinaJoy2004_OptimizationAndTools.pdf]source[/url]

[size=1]The politics are invading the technology. We don't really like to mess with politics because that kind of adversarial relationship has nothing to do with pure technical operations and the technical specifications of what we like to play with, the hardware![/size]
volt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 12:02 AM   #70
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by sebazve
what i dont understan from you guys is that for years you haven been using 3dmark as a benchmark but now since nvidia says it sucks you think that too.
Nvidia and ATI do spend time optimizing their drivers for 3dmark so what??? they have been doing since the first one...i havent seen you before complaning about the use of this bench...
or you just have realized that in fact they do this???

in fact nvidia started this, then ATI saw that 3dmark had an influence on people and start doing the same thing.
at least 3dmark2001 was a good system benchmark.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 12:08 AM   #71
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Re: Mike's 3DMark Commentary

Quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
You could consider 3Dmark03 as a game. Actually it is a game, the only difference is that you donít get to control the character. A higher score in 3Dmark means overall better performance. By overall I mean that itís a general estimation how good your system (not only your GP) is. Most games rarely use state of the art rendering techniques which means they get could get rather high score in a particular game but maybe not with 3DMark.

Choose between a GP, which gives you more points in 3DMark and one generates a much lower score, what would you choose? No one here could possibly go for a lower score.

Graphic is graphic, no matter if you control the viewpoint or not. Nvidia is whining!
3dmark is not a game by the definition that you cannot play it.

look at Max Payne the game. look at the Max Payne scene in 3dmark2001. do benchmark results between the two corroborate each other? the answer is no. that's as close as 3dmark gets to a game, and even in that case, it fails miserably at predicting actual game performance.

Hellbinder, you keep saying nvidia's argument is all about PS1.4 vs PS1.1.

what do you have to say to my earlier post?
Quote:
isn't that the point? i'm not going to judge the validity of nvidia's statements, but they are saying that the benchmark game tests are not indicative of future games or future game performance.

it sounds like they were complaining about the implementation of the real time shadows; saying that it is poorly done and that future games will not have code like that.
are you saying that nvidia is lying and that the lighting algorithms used in 3dmark03 ARE efficient, that this type of algorithm WILL be used in future games? all your posts do in fact say that 3dmark03 IS a good FUTURE indicator of game performance. yet Doom3's performance is MUCH better than the "Doom3" game test in 3dmark03.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-03, 01:12 AM   #72
TheHip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1
Default

If nVIDIA don't want to optimize for benchmarks, but rather games - I wonder why THIS is happening then?

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/...=5&o=0&fpart=1

It looks rather strange to me.
TheHip 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
(PR) New 3DMark Trailer Shows Stunning DirectX 11 Graphics News Latest Tech And Game Headlines 0 06-21-12 08:30 AM
Computex: 3DMark Announces Windows 8 Benchmarking - First Screenshots News Latest Tech And Game Headlines 0 06-05-12 06:30 PM
poor 3Dmark score wysiwyg Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 09-27-02 04:25 AM
3dmark reports my fsb is 66? Gator Benchmarking And Overclocking 7 09-21-02 10:10 PM
3DMark, Fastest Webmasters and Me. intercede007 Benchmarking And Overclocking 4 08-17-02 10:49 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.


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