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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-26-03, 08:44 AM   #37
abb
Registered User
 
abb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
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.

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
Actually, the graphics look GREAT! if they do not, then it must be your card. The Ti4600 is a good card (I know, because I have one in my sons computer- but not in my main one). It is just not meant for this benchmark, just like the ATI Rage was not meant for 3DMark 2K1 when it first came out. It is a good benchmark. It is just not for Nvidia cards untill they up their technology and start putting out cards that can compete in todays future market. Nvidia had it with the NV30, but its final result ended with a card that is extremely hot, extremely loud and not that great of a performer compared to the hype that this card had. It is time for NVIDIA to go back to the drawing board. If NVIDIA had a board that would perform extremely well in this benchmark, then 3dmark 03 would never be in question.
Abb
__________________

Athlon XP 2400+ (11.5x188fsb)
ThermalRight SLK-800
A7N8X Deluxe
2x256mb Corsair XMS PC3500
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro (Cat's 3.1)
Soundblaster Audigy2 Platinum
Promise TX2000 Raid Controller Card
Raid 0: 2x Maxtor 740DX 80GB ATA133
Pioneer 16x DVD Slot Load
Pioneer A04 DVD-RW
LiteOn 52x24x52 CDRW
Iomega Zip100
Enermax EG651 530W power Supply
OS: Windows XP Pro SP1
Thermaltake A6000A Xaser II Case
abb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 08:44 AM   #38
Chalnoth
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,293
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann
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.
Only 3DMark03 is marketted as a gamers' benchmark, not as a DirecX benchmark. I think it would have been awesome if Futuremark put used Cg, if only to compare Cg vs. HLSL, or Cg vs. hand-optimized assembly (using the lowest PS vesrion possible).
__________________
"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 02-26-03, 08:48 AM   #39
creedamd
 
creedamd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 597
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by abb
/snip

. If NVIDIA had a board that would perform extremely well in this benchmark, then 3dmark 03 would never be in question.
Abb
bingo
creedamd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 08:55 AM   #40
DaveBaumann
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Chalnoth
Only 3DMark03 is marketted as a gamers' benchmark, not as a DirecX benchmark.
Oh, don't be daft.

http://www.futuremark.com/companyinf...whitepaper.pdf

Quote:
3D Platforms. The dominant 3D platform on PCs is Microsoft DirectX. 3DMark releases have coincided with major DirectX versions - 3DMark 2000 with DirectX7, 3DMark2001 with DirectX8, and 3DMark2001 SE with DirectX 8.1. Accordingly, 3DMark03 targets DirectX® 9 features and continues the tradition being a forward-looking benchmark. We hope to give the user a view into state-of-the-art 3D graphics not only today, but also up to one and half years into the future. OpenGL is another popular 3D platform, especially in CAD and
scientific applications. As Direct3D has higher usage in games and more uniform driver support, we only support Direct3D. However, we actively monitor the progress of OpenGL adoption.
No doubt you've already read the comments fron Worm/Neeyik/AJ at B3D in what they are targetting - it just obtuse to say that its marketted as a 'Gamers benchmark' and not a DirectX benchmark. It is margetted as both.
DaveBaumann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 09:01 AM   #41
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
2k3 = 2003 period, you are high.
No, I just listen to teachers rather than strangers.

Just asking: Is this an American way of doing it?
__________________
"Never before has any voice dared to utter the words of that tongue in Imladris, Mr. Anderson" - Elrond LOTR

Last edited by Kruno; 02-26-03 at 09:23 AM.
Kruno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 09:28 AM   #42
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
2k3 is 2300.

? No, it's 2003...isn't it?

What's 2003 then?

EDITED BITS: I posted this before I noticed there was a second page where this was already thoroughly discussed. I gotta stop posting before my first pot of coffee.

Can we just agree to disagree on this one? I'm gonna stick with the 3dm2k3 labelling convention just 'cause it seems to work with the way I referred to their past attempts as 3dm2k & 3dm2k1se.
__________________
[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]

Last edited by digitalwanderer; 02-26-03 at 09:32 AM.
digitalwanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 10:45 AM   #43
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

Quote:
... if you are doing DirectX only development, why would you use Cg?
because that is what you got payed to do.
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 10:58 AM   #44
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DaveBaumann
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?
There are many other reasons why a developer would use CG for directx, but there are already several threads discussing this, so I won't go into detail.
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-26-03, 11:04 AM   #45
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Myrmecophagavir
2k3 = 2 * 1000 * 3 = 6000. Hence we should say UT2k+3, but why bother since that's the same number of chars as UT2003...
I understand this "equation" but where does the 2300 figure comes from?

Hmmm, maybe math is different across the world
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 11:28 AM   #46
kyleb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 364
Default

k = 1000

2k = 2000

2k3 =2003


thats math on my part of the planet
kyleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 12:40 PM   #47
jbirney
Registered User
 
jbirney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cotita
There are many other reasons why a developer would use CG for directx, but there are already several threads discussing this, so I won't go into detail.
Its been show that currently CG only supports features found in NV hardware (no support for Turform or PS1.4). If a developer has all the tools he needs to write HLSL which is a standard for all hardware, why not write just in HLSL?
jbirney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-03, 01:00 PM   #48
Myrmecophagavir
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Cotita
I understand this "equation" but where does the 2300 figure comes from?
I have no idea, ask K.I.L.E.R... I refuse to say 2k3 meaning anything other than 6000
Myrmecophagavir 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 02:50 PM
Popular Surveillance Cameras Open to Hackers, Researcher Says News Archived News Items 0 05-15-12 06:30 AM
nCore Schedules Popular Multicore Programming Course for Houston News Archived News Items 0 05-14-12 06:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:36 PM.


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