3DMark2003 Defaults should be different...

[Jeff7181]

We're entering an age of video cards where you're expected to use AA and AF. So why doesn't 3DMark2003 have at least 2X AA and 4X AF on by default for tests? Think about it... a Ti4600 scores higher with those off than a 9500 Pro does... but would anyone here deny that a 9500 Pro is better than a Ti4600? As soon as you turn AA or AF on, the 9500 Pro leave the Ti4600 in the dust.
Yes I know the Ti4600 isn't DX9 compliant... I'm just using that as an example. The Ti4600 beats the 9500 Pro in benchmarks with AA and AF off... and the 9500 Pro is almost twice as fast in benchmarks with AA and AF on.

 

[McArra]

You can always turn then on in the control panel

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: McArra
You can always turn then on in the control panel

How does that help you compare your score to someone else's? People use default settings to compare their's to other people's... so what good is it if you run it with settings that aren't the default?
People don't buy $500 video cards to play games with AA and AF off.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: McArra
You can always turn then on in the control panel

How does that help you compare your score to someone else's? People use default settings to compare their's to other people's... so what good is it if you run it with settings that aren't the default?
People don't buy $500 video cards to play games with AA and AF off.

People don't buy $500 video cards to use useless benchmarks either with or without AA and AF!

 

[Jeff7181]

Regardless what people's opinions of synthetic benchmarks are, they do serve a purpose. The problem is people don't understand what purpose they serve.
They're good for trouble shooting, comparing like rigs, and testing modifications you've made to your own rig.