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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-25-03, 04:43 PM   #13
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
it would be dumb for Hardware reviewers not to show the 3dmark2003 score, if a graphics card runs 2003 smooth, the chances are exceptional that it will run current games like butter, 2001 is less reliable, it is cpu intensive.
yes...and most current games are cpu intensive as well. so what's your point?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 05:39 PM   #14
scott123
Registered User
 
scott123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 473
Default

3dmark03 is a dismal disaster. Futuremark really missed the mark, and they will probably need to release another one within a year.

If Futuremark cannot get ALL the folks on-board (including Nvidia) for future beta testing, they won't make it in the long run.

Scott
__________________
ASUS P5B Deluxe
Intel Core Duo 6600
eVGA 8800GTX
Creative Xfi
Cooler Master CM Stacker STC-T01
scott123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 05:45 PM   #15
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk
yes...and most current games are cpu intensive as well. so what's your point?
point is that it's supposed to be a video card benchmark, not a cpu benchmark, you can take a 9700pro and a 2 ghz system and get a score on 3dmark2001, now take the same 9700pro and put it on a 3 ghz system and what is the score? A substantial improvement. Do the same for 3dmark03, what happens? The score is close to the same. Because it is a benchmark of graphics.

the name of the company is FUTUREmark, one can only hope that games look that way in the future, hopefully they will make games using the same technology that made 3dmark03. Can you imagine the card that will run that thing smooth? It is a good goal for the graphics industry and I believe it will become a standard. I know I will take it into consideration, but not base a purchase on it. Anyone who says " I don't care what it gets in 3dmark03" when purchasing a new card will be a.)lying or b.) a fool.
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 05:48 PM   #16
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123
3dmark03 is a dismal disaster. Futuremark really missed the mark, and they will probably need to release another one within a year.

If Futuremark cannot get ALL the folks on-board (including Nvidia) for future beta testing, they won't make it in the long run.

Scott
I don't believe they have to have nvidia on to be sucessful. Ati has the whole graphics market cornered, from value to highend, and probably will for a while. They will win over alot of enthusists in the next few months. 3dmark03 will become a standard.
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 08:23 PM   #17
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann

B.) Why would Futuremark use Cg in the first place? 3DMark is a DX benchmark and considering DX has its own HLSL it would frankly look very odd if they even thought about using Cg!
As far as I know futuremark didn't use HLSL at all but used assembly instead.

Actually the use of Cg might have helped to include more DX9 effects, the downsize is that nvidia cards would be most benefited.
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 09:14 PM   #18
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 creedamd
it would be dumb for Hardware reviewers not to show the 3dmark2003 score, if a graphics card runs 2003 smooth, the chances are exceptional that it will run current games like butter, 2001 is less reliable, it is cpu intensive.

To not use 3dmark03 is ignorant, and nvidia biased.
That's what I have been saying. I have used 3dmark to diagnose and test 3dvideo performance. If my 3dmark03 score is great, but an old game is slow. I will know it has nothing to do with my video card. (drivers may have broken the game and iwould ask if that occurs, so I would get further without needing to do much work)

Also if capable of generating a high 3dmark score, games will run good. CPU limited games I have come across are: Commanche 4, DF:BHD and finally DF:LW.

That's it. Every other game takes a large hit with FSAA and AF enabled, even when it's disabled, games like UT03 run so much faster by nudging texture details to medium than their maximum in game options allow. Might I add, disabling sound and all other CPU tasking options don't give me much of a performance increase, if any at all. What's more is that my CPU is out of date.

If people only knew how to configure things, run games from a CLI with a high priority setting and explorer and just about everything disabled they will find that a vast majority of games are not so "cpu limited" after all.
BTW: This does not include games like Quake 1.
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR

Last edited by Kruno; 02-25-03 at 09:20 PM.
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 10:22 PM   #19
scott123
Registered User
 
scott123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 473
Default

Quote:
I don't believe they have to have nvidia on to be sucessful. Ati has the whole graphics market cornered, from value to highend, and probably will for a while. They will win over alot of enthusists in the next few months. 3dmark03 will become a standard.
This effort by Futuremark is like amature hour. The graphics look terrible, and the benchmarks are based on conjecture not fact. The 1999/2000/2001 efforts were great, but 2003 IS a disaster.

Futuremark, to be a valid benchmark needs ALL the big players on board. Right now the 3dmark03 benchmark has been deminished, and is not really the benchmark of choise anymore.

I don't know if Futuremark will ever come out with another valid benchmark, but I wish them luck because it's back to the drawing board.

Scott
__________________
ASUS P5B Deluxe
Intel Core Duo 6600
eVGA 8800GTX
Creative Xfi
Cooler Master CM Stacker STC-T01
scott123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-03, 11:29 PM   #20
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by creedamd
point is that it's supposed to be a video card benchmark, not a cpu benchmark, you can take a 9700pro and a 2 ghz system and get a score on 3dmark2001, now take the same 9700pro and put it on a 3 ghz system and what is the score? A substantial improvement. Do the same for 3dmark03, what happens? The score is close to the same. Because it is a benchmark of graphics.
i fully realize that 3dmark03 is a video card benchmark. the problem, as has been stated more times than i can count, is that it is called a gamer's benchmark.

it is not called a video card enthusiast benchmark. now that says to me that 3dmark03 should be indicative of future performance. like i said somewhere, we will see how Doom3 runs on all these cards. right now there is no proof one way or another that says 3dmark03 will or will not be indicative of games in the future.

Quote:
Anyone who says " I don't care what it gets in 3dmark03" when purchasing a new card will be a.)lying or b.) a fool.
well like i said, we will see how Doom3 runs. if we don't see the performance pattern in Doom3 that 3dmark03 has, then i wouldn't care about the 3dmark03 score at all.

i never cared about my 3dmark2001 score. great, my friends with gf2mxes had pitiful scores compared to mine because they couldn't run the Nature test. and their cards choked in 32bit color. but i know that the gf2mx performed poorly compared to my card based on in-game benchmarks already. 3dmark2001 never meant anything compared to real games either. and how many games do i own that have special DX8 effects....hmm, zero.
  Reply With Quote

Old 02-25-03, 11:44 PM   #21
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Cool

Quote:
Originally posted by scott123
3dmark03 is a dismal disaster. Futuremark really missed the mark, and they will probably need to release another one within a year.

If Futuremark cannot get ALL the folks on-board (including Nvidia) for future beta testing, they won't make it in the long run.
I dunno, I sort of think you got that backwards. If nVidia doesn't get on-board with Futuremark soon I think it's gonna just keep being another PR black-eye for 'em.

They're looking like sore losers because their shiny new cards ain't all they were cracked up to be, plain and simple.

I'm sort of shocked that 3dm2k3 is already as popular as it is...I really didn't expect it to be adopted as quickly as it has been. I still pretty much use 3dm2k1se to bench D3D as I think it's more accurate and representative of most of the games out today...but 3dm2k3 is gonna be added to me benching regime after my next upgrade I'm pretty sure. (Ok, I just can't STAND scoring under 2000! )

Right or wrong, 3dm2k3 is going to be one of the new standards...regardless of what nVidia says about it.
__________________
[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]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 12:11 AM   #22
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 digitalwanderer
I dunno, I sort of think you got that backwards. If nVidia doesn't get on-board with Futuremark soon I think it's gonna just keep being another PR black-eye for 'em.

They're looking like sore losers because their shiny new cards ain't all they were cracked up to be, plain and simple.

I'm sort of shocked that 3dm2k3 is already as popular as it is...I really didn't expect it to be adopted as quickly as it has been. I still pretty much use 3dm2k1se to bench D3D as I think it's more accurate and representative of most of the games out today...but 3dm2k3 is gonna be added to me benching regime after my next upgrade I'm pretty sure. (Ok, I just can't STAND scoring under 2000! )

Right or wrong, 3dm2k3 is going to be one of the new standards...regardless of what nVidia says about it.
Unreal Tournament 2300? WTF???
3dmark 2300?


Pass around what you are smoking plz.
__________________
"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 02-26-03, 12:48 AM   #23
digitalwanderer
 
digitalwanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 4,944
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Unreal Tournament 2300? WTF???
3dmark 2300?


Pass around what you are smoking plz.
I always share, but I don't get where I messed up.

Please share the funny as I must be extra thick-headed, I love laughing at meself.
__________________
[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]
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 02:33 AM   #24
DaveBaumann
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cotita
As far as I know futuremark didn't use HLSL at all but used assembly instead.

Actually the use of Cg might have helped to include more DX9 effects, the downsize is that nvidia cards would be most benefited.
Thats exactly as I wrote in our Postmotem article. However, under no circumstances does it make sense for them to use Cg when there is a perfectly good, native DirectX, vendor unspecific, HLSL in DirectX9.

Really, the only time a DX developer would use Cg is if they are porting across to OpenGL as well, if you are doing DirectX only development, why would you use Cg?
DaveBaumann 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
The Most Popular Linux News Of Eight Years News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 01:50 PM
Popular Surveillance Cameras Open to Hackers, Researcher Says News Archived News Items 0 05-15-12 05:30 AM
nCore Schedules Popular Multicore Programming Course for Houston News Archived News Items 0 05-14-12 05:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.


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