• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anandtech's FX-53 article. Why would we need 500+ fps in Quake 3?!?!

L

Lonyo

Lifer
570.7fps for the 3.4GHz EE

Why would anyone ever need over 200 fps, let alone almost 600fps in ANY game? It seems that, while the Quake 3 engine is oft used in benchmarks, it's pretty useless, as games like Wolfenstein and JK2 show, both getting sub-100 scores in comparison.

Is there any real point in including Q3, beyond saying "It's fast enough to be run"?
 
Because it's a stable, easily reproducible gaming benchmark that scales nicely with system, video, and CPU speed across a HUGE range of systems? There aren't too many of those out there.
 
Because you can impress Jimmy and all his geek mates at your next LAN party. You show you have more money for a CPU instead of a car, education, grog or a house.
 
You don't and anand knows you don't. It's just to show what the cpu is capable of. That's it. The definition of scaling. End of story.

Scale - Just how a mile is measured as an inch on a paper map. Proportionate to its capabilities and performance.

 
It is a good way to show how fast a CPU is compared to other CPUs. It shouldn't matter if it was reporting 500 fps, 50 fps, or even 0.005 fps. The chip will still be twice as fast in that type of program as one which does 250 fps, 25 fps, or 0.0025 fps respectively. It is the RATIO of the two scores that matters - and when using ratios, your complaint is irrelavant.
 
It has nothing to do with how many frames per second you need. It's an indication of the platform's ability to scale as clock speeds increase. You guys put too much value on the numbers alone. When you look at benchmark scores you need to think about what the benchmark is testing, and what a good score is... maybe higher is better in this case, but in another case like media encoding when it's measured in seconds to complete the task, lower would be better obviously.

What is this Quake 3 benchmark telling you? It's telling you that the Quake 3 engine is limited by the CPU/platform. Remember when the 400 FPS barrier was broken and everyone was saying it was a sign that it was platform limited? Well now that barrier has been surpassed by quite a wide margin which tells you that the CPU/platform is less of a bottleneck. That should also tell you that you can run every detail at the max, maybe with the exception of 8XAA, and still get acceptable frame rates.

You really gotta take benchmark results with a grain of salt. I figured the whole 3DMark fiasco would have shown most of you that already.

By the way... what's a grog???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top