Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: ZmaN on January 17, 2006, 02:47:15 pm
-
Yea its coming... :nod: :nod:
http://www.gamespot.com/promos/2006/3dmark06/index.html
I am definitly gonna download that puppy!
-
Wee! Another program to tll me my system is woefully outdated, despite being what it is! :blah:
-
I look forward to watching 2fps on my SLI system. :nod:
Although I hope it's not like 05, which was way too shader dependent and hardly stressed anything else at all (1024x768 with no AA), making it a poor indicator of game performance.
-
CP5670, that's what put me off the damn thing. As much as I respect the concept of benchmarking your system (and it being a useful tool to see if certain settings/configs make a difference) - it's all for nothing if the benchmark doesn't adequately test all functions equally.
-
Please. The REAL purpose of the 3DMark series is to look cool.
Generating e-penis measurements is purely a secondary concern.
-
Will this run on my ATi Rage II Pro??
-
CP5670, that's what put me off the damn thing. As much as I respect the concept of benchmarking your system (and it being a useful tool to see if certain settings/configs make a difference) - it's all for nothing if the benchmark doesn't adequately test all functions equally.
Ach, I'm sure Nvidia/ATi will swiftly 'optimise' their drivers to improve the 3dmark scores........
-
well, i barely broke 4000 with my stuff fully overclocked
and my system isnt wimpy by any means
7800GT @ 540 mhz core @ 1300 mz DDR
AMD X2 4400+ @ 2.75 ghz
1.5 gigs dual channel DDR
older systems: beware!
-
rich bastard.
-
rich bastard.
-
Never really cared except for the pretty graphics.
Even then, I was more impressed by that trees demo (Well, haven't bothered to test this 3DMark, doubt it's worth the bother). Anyone know what that tree demo was, with the mechs? :p
-
That was lame. It has two new demos, but both look crappy compared to the 05 ones and one is used only for the CPU tests and consequently runs at around 0.2fps. The rest of the demos are all recycled from 05, with HDR and a few spruced up models but otherwise identical. I get 7344.
From the comments I'm reading, the CPU limitation is still there, only to a lesser degree. And unlike 05, which liked ATI cards, 06 has a big preference for Nvidia according to the scores I'm seeing. Even by 3dmark standards, 06 is pointless for doing any real comparisons.
CP5670, that's what put me off the damn thing. As much as I respect the concept of benchmarking your system (and it being a useful tool to see if certain settings/configs make a difference) - it's all for nothing if the benchmark doesn't adequately test all functions equally.
The way I see it, the only thing 3dmark is good for is making sure your system is performing without any problems, as you can compare your score to people who have the same hardware.
Even then, I was more impressed by that trees demo (Well, haven't bothered to test this 3DMark, doubt it's worth the bother). Anyone know what that tree demo was, with the mechs?
The second test (the one with the radioactive butterfly) is in a forest at night, if that's what you are referring to.
-
seeing as i end up with a new computer every 3 years, ive always used 3d mark to see how many points i jumped. however i always used the same old 2001 version. new version means the scorings gonna change, which screws up my whole baseline.
but really the graphics are what rules :D
-
I just found out this software was half a gigabyte.. I really don't care enough to download that much.
-
Half a gigabyte? That's almost two weeks!
-
Or four hours for anyone on ADSL.
My X2 4200/GF7800GTX/2GB system managed about 3800 3DMarks in '06. Apparently that's below average for a machine like this. Right now I'm in the process of clocking the hell out of it...
230MHz FSB and counting. The Vcore is already at 1.5V to keep it steady, but temps are still below 30C on the hottest-running torture test Prime95 has to offer.
The target: 260MHz.
-
I just found out this software was half a gigabyte.. I really don't care enough to download that much.
It's been 500Mb for years no... I think mark '01 was like 300Mb.....
-
Yeah, it's no larger than the last one was. It took me about half an hour to get, but I was doing other things anyway so it was no big deal.
Of course, it was rather a waste anyway considering that most of the demos were the same. :rolleyes:
-
Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
Wee! Disqualified already!
-
LOL... Score: 1002
-
Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
Wee! Disqualified already!
The line beow is cool too :
DirectX® 9 compatible graphics adapter with Pixel Shader 2.0 support or later, and graphics memory of 256 MB minimum
-
Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
Wee! Disqualified already!
Heh, even an AMD X2 4800+ needs to be overclocked or it's disqualified from the get go. A bit draconian if you ask me :p
-
Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
Wee! Disqualified already!
The line beow is cool too :
DirectX® 9 compatible graphics adapter with Pixel Shader 2.0 support or later, and graphics memory of 256 MB minimum
well, my vid card has 256 Mb but I don't think it is PS2.0. I have no idea really. >..>
-
I just found out this software was half a gigabyte.. I really don't care enough to download that much.
i just DL'd the empire at war demo which wieghs in at over 700 meg so i'm not gonna bat an eyelid at 500 meg or so :p
-
Oh you guys misunderstand... it's not that it's incredibly huge. I just can't be bothered to try considering what I'd be getting. It doesn't seem worth it.
-
What the hell is the point of a benchmark program that automatically excludes over half the market, anyways?
-
well, my vid card has 256 Mb but I don't think it is PS2.0. I have no idea really. >..>
The 9x00 line fully supports SM2.0 (except a few of the low end 8500-based cards), although it won't run that stuff very well.
Some of the tests use SM3.0 though, so the final score tanks on cards not supporting that.
Intel® or AMD® compatible processor 2.5GHz or higher
Wee! Disqualified already!
I hate how they always show the frequency in Intel terms in these system requirements. Although I have my opteron at 8x375 so I'm covered either way. :p
-
What the hell is the point of a benchmark program that automatically excludes over half the market, anyways?
More to the point, what the hell is the point of a benchmark which alters its own performance criteria every year? I know cards' featuresets are getting larger all the time, but the last big thing we've had was shaders, and they've been around for absolutely ages. If FutureMark actually gave a damn about providing useful comparisons, rather than causing e-penis envy to get people to buy the latest cards, we'd be getting roughly the same scores for our systems regardless of the version.
-
The problem is that about two years after a 3dmark version comes out, all the video cards start to get the same scores due to CPU limitations. It has happened very quickly with 05 due to the emergence of dual card setups and generally the amazing rate at which video cards have grown faster since 05's release. For example, two 7800GTs, two X1800XTs and two 512MB 7800GTXs all score within 1000 points of each other in 05 despite their real performance being very different. So they have to keep changing the thing in order to keep up with newer games and make the differences show up.
I think this is going to happen even faster with this new 06 version, as the best current video card setups are already breaking 10k with it and there are much faster cards coming out very soon. The X1900 line will launch this Monday and G71 is reported to come out in early March.
-
nothing much changed over 3dmark 05, only some bells and whistles