Do you people think 3DMark2001 is a joke?

[WarmAndSCSI]

I personally believe Mad Onion's 3DMark2001 is a piece of lying $h17... I'm sure you all know it was SPECIFICALLY designed to perform well on GeForce3s, and not so hot on GF2s! GeForce3s are a joke, also, but I'll comment on that some other time... All the tests in 3DMark2001 have the "new technology" (pixel shaders) that is "accelerated" on GeForce3s and done through software on GeForce2s, which slows performance of GF2s WAY down. I'm gonna take the code of 3DMark2001 apart and find the line where it searches for the video card identifier and tells the app to perform bad unless that identifier= nV GeForce3. 3DMark2001 is also supposed to be very CPU-heavy which is also a joke... My GeForce2 Ultra performs just as well on my 800 as it would on a 1 GHz... I think 3DMark2001 is a big conspiracy of nVidia's. What do YOU think about 3DMark2001??? Is it a truthful benchmark or a benchmark that makes the GeForce3 look good???

 

[Compellor]

I ran it and got crappy results (compared to 3DMark2000), but I wouldn't call it a "joke." Saying it's a "big conspiracy of nVidia's" just shows your ignorance, since the program is designed for DirectX 8 features, as opposed to being optimized strictly for the GeForce 3. My poor results will not make me want to go out and buy a GeForce 3 anytime soon. I'm happy with what I have right now.

 

[WarmAndSCSI]

Ignorance... HAHA!!! Let's talk about your ignorance!!! You can't even compare 3DMark2k results with 3DMark2k1 results!!!!

 

[Swanny]

It's designed for DX8 and all of DX8's new features. Right now the GF3 is the only card that has all those features, so it is the only one that performs well. It's a fact of life bud, get used to it. Once other cards come out that support those features they will get good scores too. My GF 2 Pro does on 3DMark2001 what my V3 3000 did on 3DMark2000. That is perfectly normal since that's just the way hardware development goes.

 

[Compellor]

<< You can't even compare 3DMark2k results with 3DMark2k1 results!!!! >>


True. You also can't compare DirectX 7 and DirectX 8 code. The same goes for the different sets of Detonator drivers. GeForce 2 cards aren't DirectX 8 compliant, thus, the poorer results using a 3DMark2001. Duh!

 

[jobberd]

just let the camper be. perhaps some day he will learn his ways and become a happy camper

 

[rbV5]

<< Is it a truthful benchmark or a benchmark that makes the GeForce3 look good??? >>



Why not use benchmark tools to check your own computer against prior performance when changing drivers, hardware ect.? I can tell how games and applications run by....playing/using them, I could care less how somebody elses crap runs a benchmark. People who live and die by their 3DMark Score are the REAL JOKE.

 

[Priit]

Agreed with rbV5: 3DMark is nice demo and everything but it isn't THE benchmark to justify about system overall performance. People tweaking their computers just to get bigger (random) numbers out of 3DMark and bragging about it seem kinda silly to me...

 

[celeritas]

<< GeForce3s are a joke, also, but I'll comment on that some other time >>

Are you trolling? Your comment and sig gives me that impression. OK, I'll bite. Why do you think the GF3 is a joke?

Please don't tell me that the GF3 &quot;sucks&quot; just because you can't afford it.

As for 3DMark2001, if you select all tests and some of them benchmark features that only the GF3 has implemented, of course it's going to make a GF3 look disproportionally better than a GF2. Have you tried unchecking the DX8, etc. tests to level the playing field somewhat? If you can't find a way that 3Mark2001 will test your card &quot;fairly,&quot; then either find another benchmark that will (or one that'll lie to you), or just save up your pennies for a better card. I did.

 

[celeritas]

I click once, and get five. Go figure.

 

[celeritas]

hiccup

 

[celeritas]

hiccup

 

[celeritas]

hiccup

 

[JackBurton]

<< Please don't tell me that the GF3 &quot;sucks&quot; just because you can't afford it. >>


That's exactly the impression I'm getting.


Hey Camper, let me guess your age...12?

 

[DoubleL]

Why get so tied up with the numbers on the 3DMark 01, It gives you a base line on your computer, Still one of the best looking cards just to look at the demo is the Voodoo 5500 even if the numbers do suck, If it looks good and doesn't lock up and lets me know if the things I am doing are are working where's the conspiracy

 

[rickn]

I kinda look at like the car companies look at the Insurance Institutes offset crash test.

It is a good program to gauge performance, but it is not representative of real world conditions

 

[Rand]

Given the fact that 3DMark 2001 is designed for DX8 and all of DX8's new features it's not surprising only the GF3 performs especially well. Afterall, for now the GF3 is the only card that does many of those features in hardware so it makes sense that it would she that card to be disproportionately better then any other.

It's a good benchmark to measure the effects of overclocking your video card or different driver revisions but I don't consider it a good benchmark to measure various different systems against one another. Nor is it a good benchmark of a processors performance.

It looks great and it's a fine tool to use to test gains from tweaking your systems but it is not representative of real world gaming conditions IMHO.

 

[vss1980]

&quot;My GeForce2 Ultra performs just as well on my 800 as it would on a 1 GHz&quot;

Try turning off all that fancy hardware T&amp;L crap. Then you will definitely see the difference between a 800MHz CPU and 1GHz CPU.

I personally always run a test on a new graphics card without hardware T&amp;L or DXTC to see how much true raw processing power it has. It is nice when software supports all these features, but 99% of the stuff out there doesn't.

 

[Killrose]

It may not be the best bench, but neither is SiSoft Sandra, QIII timedemo1, ect.,ect. But they'er all we have besides benching by the seat of or pants. :disgust:

 

[AG73]

you can't knock 3dmark 2001. it's a benchmark program that gives you a rough idea of how fast your system is, that's all.

AG

 

[dfloyd]

Personally I always skip the 3dmark2001 reviews on video cards. Why read em? I mean woo hoo i can sit and watch the pretty demo all day.

Skip straghit to the GAME benchamarks and see how your favorite games play.

 

[WarmAndSCSI]

For one thing, if I can afford a GF2 Ultra, I can afford a $100 more GF3. Another thing; I feel very sorry for you low-lifes out there that do NOTHING but brag about your systems, game, and hang out in chat rooms and message boards collecting. Do something constructive; like design stuff in CADs, shoot digital video and edit it, build a network, learn Unix; the list goes on and ON. It's truly sad. Most of you are VERY intelligent beings, but you have failed to reach your true potential in life. Instead of becoming or even thinking about becoming database admins, network admins, techs, and engineers, you have become lazy bums that only game; I bet half of you haven't gone through college or do not plan to. I may only be 13, but I will reach my goals in life; I will suceed, unlike some of you. I have already setup a very nice VPN and 3 domains and am working on my MCSE. I already act as the net/sys admin for a small web designing business: and personally, I feel I do an exceptional job. So why don't you people grow up??? DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR LIVES!!!

(I am sorry if I have offended anyone in the process of making a point; this does not apply to everyone)

 

[Shudder]

Only reason I use 3dmark is to set some kind of level of what I should be getting. If I update the drivers I expect a higher number. Same thing with the processor.

As for what the numbers mean. I could get 2000, I could get 30,000 and I wouldn't care.. Just as long as they go up when I make my system better.

 

[rbV5]

<< I may only be 13 >>



TheUnhappyCamper, now I understand.

 

[bluemax]

And we all know everything at 13, remember?