3D Mark 2001, just another Nvidia Biased Benchmark software... no excitement at all...

j@cko

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2000
3,814
0
0
I mean what's the point of even run the 3D Mark anyway, since it's meaningless because the benchmarking isn't fair at all. The only good thing about this program is too see bunch of new demos and clips.
 

Napalm

Platinum Member
Oct 12, 1999
2,050
0
0
I think it is useful if you are comparing within platforms (i.e., new drivers or tweaks) - not across platforms (NVidia vs ATI).

Cheers,
Napalm
 

SonOfZeuz

Senior member
Feb 8, 2001
549
0
0
Can you elaborate as to why the benchmark is "not fair" you sound like you are whinning because another vid card is faster than yours. why dont you just get a Gforce 2 then you can have the fastest card too.

*the above message is just an opinion. If you can proof that the benchmark is unfair please do.
 

Syborg1211

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2000
3,297
26
91
I think the one main thing that makes the Geforce seem to test better than the Radeon is that most tests are done in 16 bit. And we all know the Radeon sucks at 16 bit but if you ask the same people to crank it up to 32 bit you will see your scores are as good if not better with a Radeon.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
Is 3DMark 2001 out yet? I didn't like 2000, is 2001 all that bad too?
 

hifimaster

Senior member
Jan 6, 2001
399
0
0
Benchmarks are ONLY to see how a hardware or software change (ie.video card,driver,tweaks,and overclocking)helps your performance NOT to see who has a better system because systems vary so much,they have there own personalitys.
 

Wingznut

Elite Member
Dec 28, 1999
16,968
2
0
The GTS gets almost twice as many "marks" as a V5. Does that indicate that in real apps, the GTS will be twice as fast? (The answer: No)
 

paruhd0x

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2000
3,100
0
0
I agree with Napalm, You only use this benchmark to get your specific type of system running at it's best with different benchmarks. Comparing two different cards doesn't work because some cards have better FSAA per say etc.


Where can I download the 2001 version?
 

Doomguy

Platinum Member
May 28, 2000
2,389
1
81
3dmark isnt nvidia biased you fool. NVidia's GF2 just has the fastest T&L unit and the most fillrate of course they're going to win. Madonion didnt write 3dmark to be faster on nvidia cards.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
True, but still, while the GTS is the fastest, it is very rarely as much faster than the other cards as 3DMark shows.
 

j@cko

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2000
3,814
0
0


<< 3dmark isnt nvidia biased you fool. NVidia's GF2 just has the fastest T&amp;L unit and the most fillrate of course they're going to win. Madonion didnt write 3dmark to be faster on nvidia cards. >>



It's not because the T&amp;L unit, because Radeon and GTS's T&amp;L perform level is extremely similar. Because of your lack of understanding, doesn't make other people &quot;fool&quot;... you should think about that through again.... ;)
 

Rand

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
11,071
1
81
I like 3DMark as a benchmark myself, it's a good general indication of what is faster than what, though it gives an overinflated estimation of how much faster in a lot of cases. And it's excellent to see the effects of your tweaks/upgrades etc.
 

ahfung

Golden Member
Oct 20, 1999
1,418
0
0
It's not because the T&amp;L unit, because Radeon and GTS's T&amp;L perform level is extremely similar. Because of your lack of understanding, doesn't make other people &quot;fool&quot;... you should think about that through again....

Seriously, you need to read some video cards shotout from Anandtech or Tom's again. From a lot of benchmarks/games it was shown that Radeon's T&amp;L engine is MUCH weaker than GTS. Clock for clock it doesn't even beat the classick GeForce. Coincidently, Radeon does very poorly in high polygon count test of 3D Mark 2000. I found myself love 3D Mark 2000 more and more. The more I understand 3d stuff the more I found it useful.

Now tell me its who lacks understanding. :D
 

j@cko

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2000
3,814
0
0


<< Seriously, you need to read some video cards shotout from Anandtech or Tom's again. From a lot of benchmarks/games it was shown that Radeon's T&amp;L engine is MUCH weaker than GTS. Clock for clock it doesn't even beat the classick GeForce >>


Wha?? You mean in 16bit, ok flame on me, because I just went back to check the results at Tom's, in 32bit, Radeon came first.... I wonder why would people buy a card that play 16bit slower when 32 bits runs faster?
 

j@cko

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2000
3,814
0
0
And who was the one that kept emphasized on how important 32bit game play was back in the Voodoo's day, because Voodoo 3 did not support 32bit, but TNT2 does... Please explain.
 

ahfung

Golden Member
Oct 20, 1999
1,418
0
0
Wha?? You mean in 16bit, ok flame on me, because I just went back to check the results at Tom's, in 32bit, Radeon came first.... I wonder why would people buy a card that play 16bit slower when 32 bits runs faster?

Two questions for you.

1. Can you read?

Find the answer here:
GeForce 2 utterly kicks Radeon's butt in Q3A nights and days - By Anand, and

Radeon got raped by GeForce 2 in Q3A ANY resolutions - By Tom's


2. You SAID &quot;It's not because the T&amp;L unit, because Radeon and GTS's T&amp;L perform level is extremely similar&quot;, DIDN'T you? So what's that jacksh1t about color depth???

No offense jack, the more you talk the more we understand you.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Wingz-

&quot;The GTS gets almost twice as many &quot;marks&quot; as a V5. Does that indicate that in real apps, the GTS will be twice as fast? (The answer: No)&quot;

Well, Giants is in the 60% faster range with a GF2(or GF1 in many cases) and also running with added features enabled not possible on the V5(Dot3 for instance). In Sacrifice the GF2 is pushing higher poly counts and holding down FPS in the 30%-50% faster range most of the time. MDK2 when using the highest graphics settings in a non bandwith limited resolution the GF2 is around 250% faster then the V5(yes, that is supposed to say 250% and not 25%) though I haven't seen any numbers from the latest drivers which are supposed to be much improved there). Then we could get into a real app, something like 3DSM, Lightwave or the like where the GF2 is much closer to ten to fifteen times as fast as the V5:)

If you want to use 3DMark2K to measure the performance of games from '99 or earlier it doesn't work very well(Quake3, UT, Expendable, mainly the old benches that sites run to try and slant things in 3dfx's favor:p). It seems that 3DMark2K's numbers hold up very well for year 2000 games.

jack20_00-

&quot;It's not because the T&amp;L unit, because Radeon and GTS's T&amp;L perform level is extremely similar.&quot;

No, they aren't even close. I was hoping that the Radeon would have a strong T&amp;L unit, but it very clearly doesn't. If you want to see the T&amp;L power then check out scores at 640x480 16bit on anything pushing a decent amount of polys. Using some of the long standing industry standard benches such as Indy3D or ViewPerf the Radeon gets trounced at 1280x960 32bit many times by the GeForce1 SDR(they are not fill intensive benches, T&amp;L mainly). We can hope that the RadeonII will fix the rather serious performance rift between nV and ATi, but one does exist right now.