Will 3DMark03 ever become popular?

[legion88]

Originally posted by hithere

(snip...)

And your suggestion about having it be "the lowest shader version possible" seems outdated...isn't this supposed to be a forward-looking benchmark? We have benchmarks for all lower versions, do we need another one?

It isn't about need. It is about 'what do you want to hide until the next best thing comes out'.

Here are some scores with a fillrate tester from the Quadro FX 2000 (400Mhz core).

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: NVIDIA Quadro FX 2000
Driver version: 6.14.1.4290
Display mode: 1024x768x32bpp
--------------------------

Color writes enabled, z-writes disabled:
FFP - Pure fillrate - 1512.724487M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1217.574219M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 975.951599M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 570.073181M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 542.109619M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Per pixel lighting - 58.340889M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 PP - Per pixel lighting - 58.350346M pixels/sec
PS_1_1 - Simple - 766.042053M pixels/sec
PS_1_4 - Simple - 480.761139M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Simple - 483.617737M pixels/sec

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4535&postdays=0&postorder=asc&star t=40

I note the signficant drop in performance from PS_1_1 to PS_1_4. The performance of PS2_0 is quite similar to PS_1_4.

Now here are the scores for a Radeon 8500.

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: ALL-IN-WONDER RADEON 8500
Driver version: 4.14.1.3659
Display mode: 1024x768x32bpp
--------------------------

Color writes enabled, z-writes disabled:
FFP - Pure fillrate - 1249.172607M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1034.936646M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 563.419495M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 255.208725M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 168.004639M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Per pixel lighting - Failed!
PS_2_0 PP - Per pixel lighting - Failed!
PS_1_1 - Simple - 1233.932617M pixels/sec
PS_1_4 - Simple - 642.095886M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Simple - Failed!

Similar result. Large drop in performance from PS_1_1 to PS_1_4. Of course, the 8500 is not a DX9 card so PS_2_0 tests all failed.

Now here are scores for the Radeon 9700Pro.

Fillrate Tester
--------------------------
Display adapter: RADEON 9700 SERIES 325/310
Driver version: 6.14.1.6292
Display mode: 1024x768x32bpp
--------------------------

Color writes enabled, z-writes disabled:
FFP - Pure fillrate - 1786.334229M pixels/sec
FFP - Single texture - 1962.872559M pixels/sec
FFP - Dual texture - 1028.006592M pixels/sec
FFP - Triple texture - 680.939575M pixels/sec
FFP - Quad texture - 498.430298M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Per pixel lighting - 188.913147M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 PP - Per pixel lighting - 188.947739M pixels/sec
PS_1_1 - Simple - 1230.885376M pixels/sec
PS_1_4 - Simple - 1223.748901M pixels/sec
PS_2_0 - Simple - 1223.748047M pixels/sec

Notice that the scores for PS_1_1, PS_1_4, and PS_2_0 are virtually the same. When it comes to performance, it does not make much of a difference which pixel shader was used on a Radeon 9700Pro. It does make a difference on the FX, a big difference. So you can see why there's a push to use PS_1_1 even with NVIDIA's latest and greatest because of the current performance issue.

[John Reynolds]

One theory I've read is that the FX architecture is running PS1.4 over its floating point hardware (DX9 compliancy requires PS2.0 to be run on floating point precision) while its legacy shader support (1.1) is using integer functionality from its predecessors (GF3/4). Therefore the FX architecture could very well be faster running PS1.1 over its integer operators than PS1.4, though the former requires more passes.

And, Roscoe, this is getting scary. I'm starting to agree with almost everything I see you post these days.

[legion88]

How many pixel pipelines do these cards have?

Radeon 9700Pro
Core: 466MHz, memory: 405MHz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=330527)
Fillrate (single): 2020.5 mtexels/sec

# of pipes: 2020.5/466 = 4.33

Core: 324MHz, memory: 351MHz (
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=299936)

Fillrate (single): 1588.3 mtexels/sec

# of pipes: 1588.3/324 = 4.9


GeForce FX series

Core: 500Mhz, memory: 500MHz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=305614)

Fillrate (single): 1314.1 mtexels

# of pipes = 1314.1/500 = 2.6

Core: 400Mhz, memory: 400MHz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=270840)

fillrate (single): 1022.9 mtexels/sec

# of pipes = 1022.9/400 = 2.56

GeForce TI 4600

Core: 361Mhz, memory: 376Mhz (
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=237799)

fillrate (single): 1003.5 mtexels/sec

# of pipes = 1003.5 mtexels/361 = 2.77

Core: 315Mhz, memory: 375Mhz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=312725)

fillrate (single): 1046.5 mtexels/sec

# of pipes = 1046.5/315 = 3.32

Radeon 8500

Core: 275MHz, memory: 275Mhz (
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=120189)

fillrate (single): 656.3 mtexels/sec

# of pipes = 656.3/275 = 2.39

Core: 319MHz, memory: 370MHz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=239614)

fillrate (single): 1024.3 mtexels/sec

# of pipes = 1024.3/319 = 3.2

Quick notes to convert to pixel fillrate.
For FX/9700Pro, divide the single-texture fillrate scores(mtexels/sec) by one then multiply by the # of TMUs used in each pipeline (which is one). Thus, they are numerically the same.

For the 4600/8500, the # of TMUs is also one since the second TMU of each pipe in single-textured cases isn't being used.

For FX/9700Pro, divide the multi-texture fillrate scores (mtexels/sec, not shown) by four then multiply by the # of TMUs used in each pipeline (which is one).

For the 4600/8500, the # of TMUs is two.

If FutureMark didn't waste their time listening to 3dfx and used this marketing term we call "texel", then this stupid conversion equation would not have been needed.

Quick observations:

1) bandwidth is the #1 influence. Comparing the 370+ Mhz memory 8500s, TI 4600s and the 400MHz FX shows similar scores, regardless of theoretical maximum fillrate.

2) the FX multi-texture scores in mtexels (not shown) are typically more than 2X greater than single-texture scores. In pixels/sec--remember to convert, this means that the single-texture fillrate is only 61% faster when it should be around around 100% faster than the multi-texture case. Strongly suggests that the single-texture FX scores are lower than it should be, possibly related to #1--bandwidth.

3) double the available bandwidth, you double the calculated # of pipes (notice the 9700Pro scores). Again, this suggests that bandwidth is the issue here. Even with the Pro, the # of pipes don't add up to 8. Where's the noise?

4) the 9700Pro's multi-texture scores in mtexels (not shown) are typically just 50% greater. In pixels/sec, this means that the single-texture fillrate is a whopping 165% faster than multi-texture instead of 100%. This suggest that the multi-texture scores are lower than it should be for unknown reason.

[Kruno]

Originally posted by Cotita
Really?, can you tell if a game was develped in C or C++?

C++.
Because it's an extension to C.
Makes it easier and quicker to do some things.

You can tell by ripping the source code.

[TheTaz]

Originally posted by Cotita
I think the reason why 3dmark 2001 became so popular is because of its MAX-FX engine. People tought there were going to be several games based ot that engine, unfortunately only Max-Payne used it.

Hmmm... Well... so far my Geforce 3 Ti500 still runs games well... and since there are no DX9 games out... I have no reason to upgrade to a DX9 card, OR Benchmark.

While it's true I got 3DMark2001 before my Geforce 3... it was more or less to compare the scores for after I bought my Geforce 3 vs my Geforce 2 GTS. My point is, it had nothing to do with Max Payne... matter of fact... I think that game is a POS.

As for 3DMark2003... I prolly won't download it until just before I'm ready to buy a DX9 Card.... but I *Will get it, eventually* (Prolly NV35, R350, or NV40 is when I'll upgrade)

/shrug

I've pretty much changed my "Video Card Upgrade Strategy"... I used to buy 'Top o' the line' every 14-18 months. Now... I'm just gonna buy "Budget" of DX(?) games that are out.

For example... by the time there are an *abundance* of DX9 games out... the "budget DX9 card" should prolly be within the NV40-NV45 area, which will be a buttload faster than my Ti500.

I'm getting really sick of spending $300+ a pop for video card.... then a couple months later something comes out that beats the pants off it for less money (Ti4200)

I mean... who the hell NEEDS 300FPS in current games???

Taz

Originally posted by TheTaz
I mean... who the hell NEEDS 300FPS in current games???

no one...but the boon of upgrading for the past few years has been that newer cards allowed you to use features like FSAA and AF at a higher framerate than previous cards

with all the new cards coming out there will definitely be some price shuffling.

[TheTaz]

Originally posted by StealthHawk
no one...but the boon of upgrading for the past few years has been that newer cards allowed you to use features like FSAA and AF at a higher framerate than previous cards

with all the new cards coming out there will definitely be some price shuffling.

Yeah... I turn on FSAA and AF for older games that my rig / card can still handle without stuttering... newer games without FSAA and AF doesn't bother me much, cuz I know eventually I'll have a card that can play em with FSAA and AF on. As long as the DX8 stuff works without stutter, I'm happy. When the DX9 games come out... I'll pretty much feel the same way with a DX9 card.

Taz

EDIT: And I don't play over 1024x768 on a 17" monitor. If I had a larger monitor, I'd prolly play higher resolutions... but on a 17"... 1024x768 suits me fine. /shrug

[Admiral Horror]

Originally posted by Cool Barn
It should be out just before NV30

LOL, so March 2004 it is?

Btw, who is planning on taking a second mortgage to buy GFFX?

[tamattack]

Originally posted by tamattack
As a consumer, would you care if Doom III is compiled from C vs. C++ source? No, you just care if the game runs as promised. What's the difference here?

Put another way: Why do you care if I use 5 words to describe something which takes you 15?

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
A\ I am a consumer and I deeply care if the source was compiled from C or C++.

B\ Using 15 words instead of 5 to say the same thing is usually done to confuse people.

[A] well ok... if you care that deeply about it...

[b] sound like anybody we know around here? Or for that matter, like any company we like to discuss around here?

[tamattack]

Originally posted by Chalnoth
I think that Futuremark's "sticking with the standards to remain neutral" is flawed. They should optimize for all video cards, not the standards.

Q: How then to guage cards released in the future?

A: Stick to the standards!

Seems obvious doesn't it?

[tamattack]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
C++.
Because it's an extension to C.
Makes it easier and quicker to do some things.

You can tell by ripping the source code.

Where are you getting the source code from?

But I do hear where you're coming from. It's just that I've always looked at it as a tradeoff:

- the more advanced language is usually more efficient for programmers but can produce a less efficient binary

- the less advanced language is usually less efficient for programmers but can produce a more efficient binary

Granted, these are rough generalizations on my part, but I would judge more based on the skill of the programmer than on the language used.

That is, I would prefer the product of an elite programmer using C rather than the product of a mediocre programmer using C++. It's all about the end product.

[Cotita]

Originally posted by K.I.L.E.R
C++.
Because it's an extension to C.
Makes it easier and quicker to do some things.

You can tell by ripping the source code.

Ooooh silly me. So I guess I can get the source code for any game right?