Will 3DMark03 ever become popular?

[Kruno]

Originally posted by digitalwanderer
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.

2k3 is 2300.

[Myrmecophagavir]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
2k3 is 2300.

2k3 = 2 * 1000 * 3 = 6000. Hence we should say UT2k+3, but why bother since that's the same number of chars as UT2003...

Originally posted by DaveBaumann
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?

if Cg produced code faster than the DX9 HLSL for all video cards. even if Cg produced faster code than DX9 HLSL for only nvidia cards, but the code produced for other vendors was just as faster as the code produced by the DX9 HLSL, i don't see why Cg shouldn't be used.

basically, as long as Cg doesn't hurt other vendors with respect to the DX9 HLSL i see no problem with using Cg, or any other compiler any company decides to make.

i could see in the case of a benchmark that you would want to be "fair" and thus not use a first party compiler. but for retail games, optimizations will be made, by hand if need be, as that is the reality right now. so compilers like Cg might as well be used if there is anything to gain.

[Lezmaka]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
2k3 is 2300.

oooooooook, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

maybe you better tell the peeps at infogrames that their website is messed up

2.3k would be 2300, not 2k3

2k = 2000
3 = 3
2k3 = 2003

it's called a shortcut

[DaveBaumann]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
if Cg produced code faster than the DX9 HLSL for all video cards. even if Cg produced faster code than DX9 HLSL for only nvidia cards, but the code produced for other vendors was just as faster as the code produced by the DX9 HLSL, i don't see why Cg shouldn't be used.

But this is still a DirectX benchmark - what is the point of using a non-Microsoft/DirectX specific HLSL when DirectX9 comes with its own? DX9 HLSL is optimised - its optimised for DirectX, which is exactly what Futuremark are looking for.

[Cool Barn]

Originally posted by Admiral Horror
When does the geforceFX Warp25 Omega Turbo come out? Do u have any info on the specs?

It should be out just before NV30

[Kruno]

Originally posted by Lezmaka
oooooooook, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

maybe you better tell the peeps at infogrames that their website is messed up

2.3k would be 2300, not 2k3

2k = 2000
3 = 3
2k3 = 2003

it's called a shortcut

There was someone at Beyond3d who pointed out that what you say is wrong.


"Also... 2k is engineering notation for 2000 -- so 2k2 means 2200, and 2k3 means 2300...the 'k' is a multiplier, in this case 1000, which goes where the decimal place would be. So it should be 2k003. Which isn't any savings at all and doesn't look nearly so cool. Sorry... pet peeve "

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=ca...n&ie=UTF-8</a>

That's also not including my electronics and physics class.

Don't argue with me.
Argue with my teachers and those people.

[jbirney]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
if Cg produced code faster than the DX9 HLSL for all video cards.

Well since CG still does not support PS1.4 why should it have been used in FurtureMark again? I also dont see how CG code could ever be faster then HLSL code. Just depends on the compilers/backend?

[stncttr908]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
2k3 is 2300.

Really? 2k=2000, 3 = 3. He said 2k3, not 2k3hundred.

Two thousand 3 = 2003.

[Hanners]

Originally posted by scott123
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.

I'll agree with you on one point here, 3DMark 2003s visuals just don't seem to have the same 'wow' effect on me as previous versions have (Although I imagine watching it run at 1FPS on my 8500 doesn't help ), and I can't quite put my finger on why. However, I think you almost have to ignore that fact and look what the tests are doing 'under the bonnet' as it were - The important thing is what is being tested, and to be honest if you want a benchmark for DirectX9 video cards, I can't see anything better to use right now.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by stncttr908
Really? 2k=2000, 3 = 3. He said 2k3, not 2k3hundred.

Two thousand 3 = 2003.

Like I said, don't bug me about it. I trust what my teachers say.
Bug them about it.

Also bug the guy who told me at Beyond3D.
Was it Mufu? Got to find that thread.

[creedamd]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
Like I said, don't bug me about it. I trust what my teachers say.
Bug them about it.

Also bug the guy who told me at Beyond3D.
Was it Mufu? Got to find that thread.

2k3 = 2003 period, you are high.