3dMark not a worthy benchmark anymore?

[BenSkywalker]

3DMark 2K is an excellent bench, just ignore the 3DMark and look at the actual numbers. You can get more performance related out of that single bench then any other gaming bench that I can think of. If I had to give a video card a performance review and could only use one bench, 3DMark2K would be it(no joke). It isn't perfect, but no single is likely ever to be.

Even the generic and for some time useless 3DMark score is becoming more represenative of games being released. Giants, Sacrifice and Evolva spring to mind as good examples(the first two also being very good games). Like the games, 3DMark will fill limit your board in higher resolutions/color depths and severely limit the impact of hardware T&L or other features, unforunately the default bench runs in 16bit which is fairly useless(who the he!! uses 16bit anymore?) and by far the most quoted.

Comments about IBMer- He isn't a troll(even though I may have called him that a few times myself). I disagree with him as often if not more then I agree, but he always has a reasoning behind his comments and can offer very logical thoughts and many times multiple examples backing his claims.

 

[RobsTV]

Yes, 3DMark is an excellent tool.
It will show any weakness in your system, (compared to 100% similiar systems), and is a great aid for checking system stability. For overclocking, it is one of the best you can use. Keep cranking up the FSB and memory until it crashes. If it runs through the benchmark cleanly, chances are you have not pushed overclocking too far. It's also a lot smaller than other test programs.

 

[han888]

Yes, 3DMark is an excellent tool.

hehehehe, must be the geforce card user

It will show any weakness in your system, (compared to 100% similiar systems), and is a great aid for checking system stability

if for stability is agree here, i am always run 3dmark2000 after i overlock my system at least 10 times on the row

anyway, 3dmark2000 is not fair, it's just weight on t&l, not for gilde, i never run 3dmark on my voodoo5 card, because it's very horrible and terrible.

 

[Taz4158]

<< Comments about IBMer- He isn't a troll(even though I may have called him that a few times myself). >>


Troll might be the wrong word, he likes to stir things up which really isn't a bad thing. At least he does back things up, unlike some people. I may disagree with him but the discussions are usually interesting.

 

[Deeko]

<< Deeko, have u realized that new games like Giants/Alice/Sacrifice DOES reflect a trend? >>


I do realize that T&amp;L cards will smash the V5 in those games, yes, I don't deny that. BUT, 3DMark still claims that the GF DDR is faster than the Radeon, and while I don't know for sure, I'd say that the Radeon probably beats it pretty good in the games you mentioned.



<< 3D Mark 2000 DOES exposes the weakness of display cards with low memory bandwidth. What you need is to benchmark it at 1024x768x32 or above. Then you will see how weak MX and SDR are. >>


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that 3DMark chart that was posted here based on the default test, at 1024x768(yea it uses 16bit color though, right?)



<< Say it again, 3D Mark 2000 DOES NOT suck >>


I still think it sucks.



<< IBMer sure trolls a lot of boards..... >>


I don't think he's a troll, I just don't agree with him here

Dave, that would be cool, how about nvidia's drivers, are they optimized for both?

 

[DarkMajiq]

3DMark is a good test for stability, but not a lot other than that.

 

[ahfung]

&quot;I do realize that T&amp;L cards will smash the V5 in those games, yes, I don't deny that. BUT, 3DMark still claims that the GF DDR is faster than the Radeon, and while I don't know for sure, I'd say that the Radeon probably beats it pretty good in the games you mentioned.&quot;

Nothing wrong with the fact GF DDR being faster, it all depends on the resolutions 3dmark chose to run.

GF DDR ties with Radeon under Q3A 1024x768x32 and beats Radeon at the same resolution 16 bit, closely resembling 3DMark. Are u gonna say Q3A sucks too?

You are wrong, Radeon isn't faster than GF DDR until pushed to extreme resolution where both aren't very playable IMHO. It is exactly the same case as 3dmark. Running at high resolution 32 bit, Radeon will kick GF DDR's butt.

I guess you don't know how crappy the Radeon T&amp;L engine is. It is no where as good as GeForce. Plus Radeon drivers are no where as optimized as GeForce, these explain why it is beaten by GF DDR under resolutions where memory bandwidth isn't the limiting factor.

&quot;Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that 3DMark chart that was posted here based on the default test, at 1024x768(yea it uses 16bit color though, right?)&quot;

You are right. Released in the year end of 1999, Madonion chose the resolution 1024x768x16 as the default 3d mark. Nothing wrong with them. Have they chosen 1024x768x32 instead, more people would be pissed off and produced more 3dmark haters like you. TNT and G400 users would be really upset and a good portion of gamers who using Voodoos would be unable to compare their score. Therefore you can't blame Madonion. Their decision is justified.


&quot;I still think it sucks.&quot;

I'm not here to convince anyone with personal hatred. Be rational. In the computer world, hardware is hardware and software is software. Religion doesn't exist.